Ballistic Missiles

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that efforts to contain the threat of ballistic missiles through the negotiation of multilateral arms control agreements have now failed.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, on the contrary, on 25th November, the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation was adopted in The Hague. The UK was one of 98 states that subscribed, all committing themselves to restraint, vigilance, confidence-building and transparency measures in the field of ballistic missiles. The code is the most significant step towards securing broad-based agreement on internationally agreed standards in that area.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for kindly publishing that Answer to my Question this morning in a public discussion paper on missile defence that I have unfortunately not had time to read in full. The reason for my Question was partly that we have all read in the newspapers that US Under-Secretary of State John Bolton came to Britain in mid-November to discuss with the Government the contribution that they might make to the American missile defence scheme. John Bolton is well known for publicly opposing multilateral disarmament regimes and insisting that the United States has the right to go it alone, expecting Britain to follow. Can we have two assurances: first, that the Government will not simply follow the Americans into sharing contracts under the unilateral American approach to missile defence; and, secondly, that the Government will continue to press for a strong multilateral framework to contain the threat of ballistic missiles, so that we do not have to go down the immensely expensive and uncertain road of ballistic missile defence?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Government share the concern of the United States Government about the proliferation of ballistic missiles. With the United States, we have a range of responses to tackle the potential threat from those weapons of mass destruction. We have a comprehensive strategy that includes non-proliferation, counter-proliferation measures, diplomacy—which is always our first resort—and deterrence, as well as the defensive measures to which the noble Lord referred. We are very much in favour of ensuring that we follow our allies' concerns. However, we have not at present received any type of request from the United States to use any facilities in this country for its missile programme.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on their achievement, does my noble friend recollect that some of us have been asking for a long time when we may expect the United Nations' fourth special session on disarmament? We have always been told that the time was not right. How will we know when it is right?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble and learned friend's question directly with a time-scale. If there is information which is not available to me this afternoon, I shall be happy to send it to my noble and learned friend, but he will be pleased to know that the international code of conduct to which I referred in my original reply has the blessing of the United Nations. Indeed, we hope eventually to fall within the United Nations' regime with that code.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, does the Minister agree that ballistic missile defence systems can actually reinforce and work with multilateral arms control negotiations—they can fill the gaps where the latter fall down? Even though we have not received a formal approach from the Americans on a ballistic missile defence system, have we been advised whether such a system would embrace our own protection and that of the rest of Europe, or merely the American continent? Does she agree that a multi-layered BMD system would be enormously valuable in developing and enhancing world security—not upsetting the security balance, as many self-appointed gurus and experts insist, but quite the reverse?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will read in the paper to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be speaking this afternoon in another place, and which is now in the Libraries of both Houses, we are considering seriously with our allies, including the United States, the options for missile defence. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, we have not at present received a formal request for any use of our facilities. However, we would agree to such a request only if we were satisfied that the overall security of the United Kingdom and the alliance would ultimately be enhanced.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us whether the Government consider that the international code of conduct is likely to have sufficiently robust effect to help to deal with the various problems concerning proliferation, including preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, we have great confidence in the code of conduct. However, it is not the only instrument to deal with arms proliferation. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned in his question that we need to use a range of responses to reinforce our defence against ballistic missile proliferation. In that sense, this is the first multi-arms control instrument in the field of ballistic missiles. It will ensure that the countries that subscribe to it—today, 99 countries subscribe to it and the Government were instrumental in writing its first draft—exercise maximum possible restraint in the development, testing and deployment of ballistic missiles, including where possible reducing national holdings of such missiles.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the US Congress has just passed a Bill advancing 7.4 billion dollars to be spent on the national missile defence programme. May we anticipate a statement from Her Majesty's Government on how much we intend to spend in that area?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the whole public discussion on costs following our discussions with the US Government about the missile defence programme is brought to public attention in the document that the noble Lord is holding to his breast.

Housing: Right-to-Buy Scheme

Baroness Maddock: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to reform the "right to buy" for social housing tenants.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we have no plans to end the right-to-buy scheme, but we see difficulties with some aspects of the way in which the scheme is operating. We are looking at what can be done to tackle abuses and at the effects of the scheme in areas of high demand for housing.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box. I hope that I shall not give him too much of a hard time on his first outing. I declare an interest as patron, president and vice-president of various housing associations concerned with affordable housing. The number of sales under the right-to-buy scheme is three times the rate at which we are building affordable homes. In 2000–01, the annual value of discounts to tenants, under the scheme, was £1.2 million, a figure greater than the amount given in grants to housing associations to build affordable homes. Given those facts, does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to stop the haemorrhaging through sale of affordable homes, particularly in areas of acute need? Local authorities are best placed to make decisions in that area because they write the local housing strategies. In the long term, we need to review the policy and identify a means of enabling tenants to accumulate assets, without reducing the supply of affordable housing.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her warm welcome.
	The Government realise that there are problems. The right-to-buy scheme has attracted criticism because it reduces the social housing stock and the stock of affordable homes. The Government have indicated publicly that they are concerned about the impact of RTB sales in areas of housing pressure and that they will take action to address it. Also, the rules are being abused. In particular, companies build up portfolios of ex-council properties by entering into deferred resale deals.
	Measures for changing RTB must be evidence-based and targeted. The Government have therefore commissioned research by Heriot-Watt University into the scale, nature and impact of the exploitation. The results of that survey are expected shortly and will be published thereafter. They will help the Government to move forward with their new policies.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have plans to change the right to buy in respect of properties specially adapted for people with disabilities?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I repeat the absolute blanket commitment given by my noble friend Lord Rooker. A mere 10 days ago, he said that we were not planning any change in the right to buy. If there were to be any exceptions to that, he would have made that clear when he spoke at the Empty Homes Agency conference on 29th November.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome the Minister to his new role. We are delighted to see him.
	Does he agree that home ownership on estates where properties have been sold into private hands—whether to first buyers or second buyers—has resulted in greater involvement of occupants in the maintenance of standards and security on such estates?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her warm welcome. I agree with the statement she has just made. The more community awareness there is, in the regions and in London, the better the estates are.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am sure the House was glad to hear my noble friend's expression of the Government's concern about the shortage of social housing. It is a particular concern in rural areas. Have the Government any plans to tackle the problem?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we recognise the importance of affordable housing in maintaining balanced and successful rural communities. We have already taken substantial measures to help to alleviate housing pressures in rural communities, as outlined in the rural White Paper. Through increased Housing Corporation investment and subject to local authorities' investment decisions and use of planning powers, we expect to deliver 9,000 affordable homes in rural areas annually by 2003-04. That will include 3,000 in small rural settlements.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it will come as a welcome surprise to many of us to hear the Minister say that any change in policy must be evidence-based. Given that he made that remark—it is, I hope, a view that he will sustain throughout his career in the Government—can the Minister say whether the Government have any evidence as to the time the original owners of right-to-buy properties remain in those dwellings?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, my naive view is that any change of policy that is not evidence-based is probably a mistake.

A noble Lord: You won't last!

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Right! In answer to the noble Lord's second point, I do not have the figures. If I can obtain them I shall happily write to the noble Lord. When we talk about abuse of the right-to-buy policy, we are talking about a comparatively small number of people. We can assume that the right to buy has helped many thousands of ordinary people to realise their aspirations to own their own homes and create mixed-income communities.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his new responsibilities. Do the Government have plans to introduce schemes to enable tenants of social properties to move into home ownership?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the right to acquire, I can tell him that that facility is available in 50 per cent of local authorities. However, the take-up has been small; about 70 sales since 1997.

English Heritage: "Images of England" Project

Lord Burnham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements are being made by the Heritage Lottery Federation to photograph all listed dwellings in the country and what exemptions will be allowed for house owners who do not wish their property to appear on a website.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, English Heritage's Images of England project is taking an external photograph of each of England's 370,000 listed buildings. Most of the photographs are being taken from public land and will be published on the project's website. Where it is impossible to take a photograph from publicly accessible land, the owner's consent will be sought. If it is refused, no photograph will be taken.
	There will be an exemption scheme for those who object to photographs of their houses being placed on the website. Details will be available shortly.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, does not this constitute a burglars' charter, certainly in respect of all those who live within sight of a road or public footpath and who cannot prevent such a photograph being taken? A 10-year limit is planned to any exemption, but is that not quite unsatisfactory as the people concerned may have forgotten about it by that time and may then be burgled?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that this is a burglars' charter, although I understand the concerns of some people that having their property photographed and put on the website might encourage burglars. However, I know that English Heritage received advice from the security industry and insurance companies which did not believe that the project would lead to more burglaries or was likely to be a problem.
	As regards the length of an exemption and whether at the end of the period there should be an automatic decision to put the photographed listed property on the website, further details are still being discussed and considered.

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, do I understand from my noble friend that English Heritage can take photographs without permission? Is not that rather presumptuous?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I should explain that information about listed buildings is already publicly available to anyone who wishes to obtain it. It can be found in libraries and in the records offices of local authorities. It is available to amenity groups, historians, local history clubs, schools, universities and a wide variety of other potential users. The aim of the project, which was a millennium project, was to have a snapshot of our heritage in approximately 2000 which could be used not just today but in the future.
	The photographs are, for the most part, being taken from the street where anyone can take a photograph of anything—it is a free country. Where they cannot be taken from a public place, permission is of course sought from the owner.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a pity if a message went out from this House that there was a criticism which ought to be met as regards the use of lottery funds for our heritage? Does she further agree that this is one bright spot of lottery funding? More than 9,000 projects have been funded and at no stage—certainly in my lifetime—have the public been more aware of their built and natural heritage. The work done by the Heritage Lottery Federation has been outstanding. I am sure that the Minister, with her colleagues, has the wit to solve the problem, which I acknowledge exists.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I entirely accept, agree with and endorse his comments about the invaluable work of the Heritage Lottery Federation in funding many projects that have supported our heritage. This is just one such project that makes it possible for people in future as well as today to have a better understanding of the extent and range of our extraordinary heritage.
	I am sure that the issue can be sorted out. I also accept that some people will be concerned. I believe that about 7 per cent of those who have listed properties have made their concerns clear.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I confess that I am the owner of a Grade II starred listed building and received nothing when I thatched it. Does the Minister believe that in return for having our properties photographed there might be the possibility of the odd little grant to help?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is extremely fortunate to be the owner of a Grade II starred listed property. Many people must be very envious of him. I am sure that when he needs in some way to improve the quality of his Grade II starred listed property, if he is eligible for a grant and applies, he will receive one.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, are there restrictions on photographs being taken of these properties from the air?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as regards this scheme, I am not aware of photographs being taken from the air. The vast majority are being taken by volunteer photographers who have been suitably trained for the task and have received an identity card. However, I am not aware of photographers applying for a pilot's licence and going up in the air to take photographs.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, has the Heritage Lottery Federation written to all the owners of the properties it has photographed? When will further information be available, bearing in mind that this was supposed to be a millennium project?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it was not thought practical to write to the owners of 370,000 listed buildings. Instead, English Heritage has publicised the scheme widely in all the local newspapers, public libraries and so forth so that people are aware of it.

Electricity Supplies

Baroness Miller of Hendon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are able to guarantee the continuity of electricity supplies following the collapse of an electricity supply company; and what support they plan to provide for companies currently running at a loss.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under the Utilities Act 2000, the regulator has powers to nominate alternative suppliers to take over the supply to customers who were formerly supplied by licensed electricity or gas suppliers which have ceased trading. This does not in any way restrict the freedom of such customers to choose any other supplier of their choice.
	Electricity supply is a commercial and competitive business. The financial position of such companies is a commercial matter for them and their financial backers.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. When there is a collapse such as that of TXU, what are his views about the domino effect on AES Drax, on Scottish and Southern Energy and on British Energy which has had to renegotiate the contract with BNFL, obviously with some detriment to BNFL? As it would appear that there is adequate spare capacity, can the Minister tell the House why we are still importing power from the highly subsidised French generators?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in my first Answer, it is not for us to comment on commercial matters affecting electricity supply companies. I can tell the noble Baroness that AES Drax has successfully severed all of its contracts with TXU, the company to which she referred. I should declare an interest as a customer who has been transferred from TXU to Powergen—although you would not notice it as the electricity comes through the same cables. There is no reason to suppose that there will be what the noble Baroness calls a "domino effect" on other electricity suppliers.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not the electricity companies which seem to be running into financial trouble will still maintain a quota of energy from alternative methods of electricity production such as windmills? Many farmers in the rural areas of Scotland are looking towards this as a possible new source of income. They do not want to be disappointed should the electricity companies go broke or be unable to deliver the income required.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two parts to that question. First, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that even if other electricity suppliers go into administration—and, as I said, I do not see any reason why they should—it would not be the same as closure. For almost all electricity suppliers, current wholesale prices are above the level of their ongoing operational costs. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, there is no change involved in the renewables obligation.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if the financial difficulties that a number of power stations are presently encountering spread, it could have an impact on the security of supply of electricity? Is he aware that on 23rd November the National Grid announced that there was likely to be a marginal shortage of 2 per cent in the supply of electricity the next day? In effect, this was satisfactorily covered. However, does it not augur badly for the time when the weather could get worse, as, judging by the temperature both in the Chamber and outside, it already has?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, it is nice and cold and clear, is it not? We have a capacity of electricity generation of 65 gigawatts. As the estimated peak demand this winter is 55.3 gigawatts, that provides a margin of 17.5 per cent, which is very close to the margin we have had over a large number of years. In addition, 7.1 gigawatts are mothballed, many of which could be brought into operation fairly quickly. I have already said that I do not believe that there is any serious prospect of a domino effect bringing down other electricity suppliers. Although I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we are well protected. The notification to which he referred has been made on a number of occasions in the past.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Utilities Act. Does he not recollect that the Government ultimately accepted my amendment that the regulator should have regard to the long-term security and diversity of supply? At the same time, the Minister referred to the "operational" costs. Most accountants would refer to those as "short-run marginal costs". Does it make sense to run an industry such as the electricity supply industry on the basis of prices that reflect short-run marginal costs?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not claim that the industry was running on that basis. I simply referred to the fact that current wholesale prices of electricity are above the ongoing operational costs—or short term marginal costs, if you wish—and that therefore there is no particular reason to suppose that anyone else will go into administration, let alone into closure, which is not the same thing.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, can he answer the second part of the question of my noble friend Lady Miller—that is, why are we still importing electricity from France?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a matter of commercial judgment. If it is to our advantage to do so and the electricity is available, it is not our concern whether there is a subsidy in France.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the answer is probably connected with the fact that there is a higher proportion of nuclear plant in France than there is in the United Kingdom?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not think so.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland will repeat a Statement on education and skills spending plans. For the convenience of the House, I can say that it is hoped that the Statement will be taken immediately after the speech on the Courts Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.

Tax Law Rewrite Bills: Select Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should point out that this committee used to be called the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills. It has been renamed but there are no changes to its terms of reference.
	Moved, That the message from the Commons of 3rd December be now considered and that a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider tax law rewrite Bills, and in particular to consider whether each Bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Blackwell, L. Brightman, B. Cohen of Pimlico, L. Goodhart, L. Haskel, L. Howe of Aberavon;
	That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed;
	That the procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of Select Committees of the House of Commons where such procedure differs from that of Select Committees of this House, and shall include the power of the chairman to select amendments.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Barnett: My Lords, while I welcome the appointment of this Joint Select Committee and the work it intends to do, how will it deal with the decision of your Lordships' House that the Economic Affairs Select Committee should also look at finance Bills? I am grateful to the Clerk for giving the noble Lord the answer to my question, which I have not yet finished. The House gave power to the Economic Affairs Select Committee to deal with finance Bills, to look at their composition and possibly to amend the law. Can the Chairman of Committees tell me how that will impact on the Motion we are now being asked to agree to?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as far as I am aware, it has absolutely nothing to do with the consideration that the Economic Affairs Select Committee may give to finance Bills. In the same way that other laws are consolidated, this committee will consider consolidating existing tax laws in the hope of simplifying them.
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:
	L. Brett, L. Brougham and Vaux, B. Gould of Potternewton, L. Greaves, L. Luke, L. Naseby, E. Sandwich.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [HL]

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the order of commitment of 25th November last be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Baroness Crawley.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I wish to make it clear that we thought it right for this Bill originally to go to a Grand Committee. But timing problems for the Government have made that difficult and we acquiesce with this Motion on this occasion.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a number of people believe that this is the kind of Bill that should not go to a Grand Committee but should be taken on the Floor of the House? We therefore welcome this Motion.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I understand that this procedure has been agreed through the usual channels.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This year, the gracious Speech had at its heart the need to maintain a balance between rights and responsibilities. Reform of the criminal justice system is key to achieving that balance.
	This Government have already achieved a great deal on crime. The British Crime Survey indicates that, overall, crime has fallen 22 per cent since 1997. We have beaten our pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by cutting it from 142 to 68 days; and we have reduced juvenile re-convictions by over 14 per cent in the first year of operating our youth justice reforms. But we have to do better still.
	In 2000-01, 5.17 million crimes were recorded, but only 19.8 per cent—less than one in five—resulted in an offender being brought to justice; that is, being cautioned, convicted, or having an offence taken into consideration. So it is clear that, whatever our successes, the criminal justice system is still not working as well as it should. In 2001, Labour's manifesto made clear the Government's intention,
	"to re-equip the Criminal Justice System to deliver justice for all—the victims, the public and the defendant".
	The Bill is central to the Government's programme of reform as set out in the White Paper, Justice for All. Together with the Criminal Justice Bill, it forms a coherent package designed to reduce crime, bring more offenders to justice and offer a better service to those who use the courts. So I shall say a little about some of the major themes of reform and how they find expression in the Courts Bill.
	But, first, let me say this: we cannot reform the criminal courts without regard for the civil and family jurisdictions. There is a good deal of interplay among the three. For example, some members of the judiciary sit in each jurisdiction. The Crown Court and county courts share the same building in 48 locations; and magistrates, of course, deal with criminal, family and civil matters. So the Bill brings forward improvements across the court system. Its fundamental aim is to deliver modern, efficient courts, free from avoidable delay, in touch with the communities they serve and more responsive to the needs of their users.
	The Government's plans for reform of the criminal justice system are broad based, but changes to law practice and procedure must be underpinned by the right infrastructure. At present, magistrates' courts are administered by 42 separate magistrates' courts' committees, while the county courts and supreme court are administered by the Court Service, an executive agency of my department. Sir Robin Auld—for whose incisive report the Government are grateful—found this division to be a barrier to the effective operation of the courts. The Government agree. The Bill therefore makes the Lord Chancellor responsible for the administration of all courts in England and Wales below the House of Lords—civil, family and criminal. I intend to establish a new, single, executive agency to run the courts administration. This will replace both the existing Court Service and the magistrates' courts' committees. It will be accountable to Parliament through my department and will offer an improved and more consistent level of service to court users. It fulfils our White Paper commitment and is in line with the Prime Minister's principles of public service reform.
	The new agency will have a strong local element and greater accountability through court administration councils which will work in close partnership with local managers. These councils will increase very significantly the opportunities for local people to have a real say in the way in which court services are delivered in their area; and, for the first time, this will include all court services, not just the magistrates' courts. The Lord Chancellor will be obliged to give due consideration to recommendations made by the court administration councils when discharging his general duty to provide an efficient and effective system for running the courts.
	The Bill will bring the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court closer together. Closer integration will remove unnecessary geographical boundaries, allowing cases to be heard at the most convenient location, taking account of the needs of victims, witnesses and defendants, and helping to reduce delay. It will bring about greater consistency in practice and procedure between the criminal courts; and it will remove statutory restrictions, allowing for more flexible use of the court estate and more effective deployment of judges and magistrates.
	A new structure that facilitates rather than hampers the effective management of the courts will be complemented by an entirely new case progression system for criminal cases. We will introduce this largely by administrative means, although supported by provisions in the Bill. The case progression project, led by my department, will see that cases progress with greater efficiency and less delay through the criminal justice system. It will support and pull together current legislation, new legislation and other administrative initiatives to help us bring more offenders to justice and to give victims and witnesses a better deal.
	One of the main strands of the Government's reform package is to ensure that sentencers have the means to impose punishments that are appropriate to the crime. The Government's position on sentencing is reflected in the new sentencing framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Bill. Protecting the public from violent, sexual and other serious offenders remains our priority. But the courts must strike the right balance between the need to deal effectively with serious and violent crime and the need to keep prison as a last resort in other cases. The Government share the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice: imprisonment only where necessary and for no longer than necessary. The Bill supports this, with provisions to improve the system for the enforcement of fines.
	Fines are imposed in three-quarters of all criminal cases sentenced in the magistrates' courts. Yet the most recent statistics show that, as at September this year, the national payment rate is only 57 per cent. That is clearly not good enough. We are considering carefully the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee in its recent report on the Collection of Financial Penalties in the Criminal Justice System. Many of the recommendations for legislative change in that report are being taken forward in the package of measures included in the Bill.
	I turn to the specific provisions of the Bill. The core is contained in Part 1—

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves the question of non-payment of fines, have the Government given consideration to further pilot schemes on the unit fine system which was abolished by Mr Kenneth Clarke when he was Home Secretary before there had been an opportunity for the scheme to be tested properly?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the Government continue to be of the view that the fine is an important form of disposal in criminal cases. It is a means of keeping people out of prison, which is highly important. The fine, however, must be seen to be an effective disposal; otherwise magistrates will not use it and the public will not have confidence in it. All options and alternatives to fines are under active consideration.
	The core of the Bill, as I said, is contained in Part 1. That gives the Lord Chancellor responsibility for the new administration of the courts. The new executive agency that we intend to establish will be an entirely new organisation. This is not a take-over of the magistrates' courts by the Court Service, nor is it a centralising measure. The new agency will build on the undoubted strengths of each of the existing systems and will embrace greater flexibility, efficiency and responsiveness to local needs. The agency will have a strong centre, as the higher courts do now, to set strategic direction and standards. That will be allied to decentralised management and local accountability.
	The agency will be headed by a chief executive, and local areas will be managed by agency chief officers. They will work in co-operation and partnership with local court administration councils established by Clause 4. Last Wednesday, I placed in the Libraries of both Houses a statement on the principles that will form the basis of the agencies framework document. That explains how I expect the agency and court administration councils to work together.
	Court administration councils will comprise magistrates, judges and representatives of the local community so that the community is fully involved in the management of courts. At the moment there is no formal local accountability in the Court Service. The administration of magistrates' courts is accountable only to a committee primarily composed of magistrates. The Bill will greatly enhance the input of the local community. Councils will approve the area strategic plans at the beginning of the year and will receive regular performance reports so that they can propose remedial action where necessary. Chief officers will be required to seek the agreement of the councils on issues of particular importance. Any proposals to open, close or relocate courthouses will be brought forward jointly by local councils and chief officers, wherever possible. Where not, it will be open to both councils and chief officers to make separate proposals. Any proposals to close courthouses will continue to be subject to wide consultation with the local community. We will establish a process for appeals to Ministers where local agreement is not reached.
	Areas performing well will have greater freedom and flexibility to operate. Those performing badly will see more support and intervention. It will allow us to set in place a clear framework of national standards and tackle poor performance and unacceptable variations. For example, fine enforcement varies from over 80 per cent in some MCCs to under 40 per cent in others. At the moment there are almost no mechanisms to address poor performance in MCCs. Achieving all that will involve far more than merely merging existing administrative bodies. A team comprising staff from magistrates' courts and my department is working in consultation with many others, including the judiciary and the magistracy, to develop the detail of the proposed agency.
	The arrangements in Part 1 are the result of much consideration within government and discussions with several bodies that represent people working in magistrates' courts. They are also in line with Sir Robin's recommendations. They strike the right balance between the central direction needed to raise standards and the need for all courts, not just magistrates' courts, to be accountable to local communities. I am convinced that our proposals, which are supported by, among others, the judiciary, the Bar, the Law Society and the Association of Justices' Chief Executives, represent the best way of delivering decentralised management and local accountability within a strong national framework.
	Part 2 will give magistrates national jurisdiction. It will allow them to be reassigned quickly if they change address, to sit at a court near their work, or to provide for circumstances where it is inappropriate for a local Bench to hear a case. However, Clause 10 places the Lord Chancellor under a statutory duty to assign magistrates to local areas. Under no circumstances will magistrates be pressed to sit in areas where they do not wish to sit.
	Clause 31 and Schedule 2, together with Clause 89, provide for the improvements to fine enforcement that I mentioned earlier. Clause 89 will put the burden on the defendant to disclose his income and expenditure so that courts can match a fine to an offender's ability to pay, and to avoid potential enforcement problems later.
	Clause 31 will enable the appointment of specific staff in courts who will be responsible, on behalf of the court, for ensuring that fines and compensation orders are paid. Under Schedule 2, fines officers will have discretion to vary payment terms, but only on application by the offender. They will be able to impose sanctions on defaulters who refuse to co-operate; for example, vehicle clamping or restricting access to credit by entering the fine on the new register of judgments.
	Let me correct a misapprehension that has appeared in the press. Fines officers will not have the power to increase fines. Schedule 2 provides for a discount for prompt payment and an increase if the offender fails to pay on time, but that increase will be set by the court. The court will explain the increase to the defendant when sentencing, and the increase will only take effect if, and when, he or she defaults. Even then, the offender will have the opportunity to avoid the increase by contacting the fines officer and agreeing and complying with new payment terms.
	Let me make this clear: for any discretionary decisions taken by fines officers, such as the sanctions I mentioned or a refusal to vary payment terms, there will be a full right of appeal to the court. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the package of measures complies with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The measures are designed to ensure that there are strong incentives for offenders to stay in touch with the court during the "lifetime" of the fine, making it easier for the court to trace them, and to deal with them, should they default. The legislation provides for piloting the new system so that the best package of arrangements can be introduced nationally in the light of experience. In parallel with that, we will develop within the community legal service, which now has full nationwide coverage, a network of support and advice for those having genuine difficulty with payment of fines. Taken together, those measures will put in place a robust but flexible framework for fine enforcement, ensuring that sentencers and the public can have full confidence in the efficacy of the fine as a punishment.
	In support of the case progression project, to which I referred earlier, Clause 40, together with Schedule 3, gives judges and magistrates—for the first time—the power to make binding rulings and directions at pre-trial hearings in criminal cases that are to be tried summarily in the magistrates' courts. The powers will mirror those already available in Crown Courts.
	Part 4 covers court security, which is obviously of great importance in all court buildings. The proposals have been driven in part by the Auld review and in part by the recommendations of the fundamental review of court security which I ordered last year following the attack on her Honour Judge Goddard at the Old Bailey. Part 4 will help to make courts even safer, particularly for witnesses and victims, through the provision of more effective court security presence. It defines the role and powers of new court security officers who will control and maintain security in court buildings and complement the physical improvements in buildings and courtroom security that we will continue to make.
	Part 5 creates a new, independent inspectorate of court administration. It will cover all administrative and support services, including security services, in Crown Courts, magistrates' courts and county courts, as well as the children and family court advisory and support service. It will ensure an improved and more consistent level of service to all court users by highlighting best practice and reporting on inefficiencies.
	In Part 6, Clauses 58 and 59 aim to improve the public's perception of the justice system by allowing a female judge of the Court of Appeal to be formally referred to as "Lady Justice" and by granting the Lord Chancellor power to modernise other judicial titles further. Those are relatively minor, but none the less essential, provisions. The recent appointment of Dame Janet Smith to the Court of Appeal was a timely reminder of the need to put that right. Clauses 60 and 61 will allow greater flexibility in the deployment of judicial resources.
	Part 7 is aimed at greater consistency of practice and procedure in the criminal and family jurisdictions. Clause 65 will create a statutory criminal procedure rule committee to make rules determining practice and procedure for all criminal courts in England and Wales. At present there is no single forum for discussing improvements to the trial process, and changes to rules therefore develop piecemeal. Charged with a modernising and streamlining agenda, the new committee will underpin the goal of greater integration in, and consistency across, the criminal justice system. Clause 72 will create a single family procedure rule committee. This will help promote consistency of approach across the various courts hearing family disputes.
	Clauses 88, 92 and 93 are the final clauses to which I shall refer. Clause 88 enables the courts to award costs against third parties whose serious misconduct causes cases to collapse or be delayed. This would shift the burden of wasted criminal costs from the taxpayer to the third party responsible for the wastage. This will fill a gap in criminal courts' powers on costs and should deter conduct that might unnecessarily delay or prolong criminal proceedings, or cause them to be abandoned.
	The provisions in Clauses 92 and 93 will enable the civil courts to award damages in personal injury cases in the form of periodical payments rather than a lump sum. This will provide a more appropriate way of compensating claimants and will ensure that they have the money to which they are entitled for as long as it is needed without the anxiety of the award running out if they live longer than expected.
	This is a package of measures which, together with the Criminal Justice Bill, furthers the Government's programme to reform and modernise the criminal justice system. The Courts Bill is crucial in achieving clarity, credibility and consistency in the criminal justice system and ensuring that we provide justice for all. But it goes further than that. It will deliver modern, efficient courts across all jurisdictions, with fewer delays, greater accountability to local communities, and better responsiveness to the needs of their users. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his presentation of the Government's proposals. It is a privilege to speak at this stage in this Second Reading debate. I do so with humility, as I am very conscious that many of those who are to speak this afternoon are distinguished legal practitioners whose views have been assembled by expertise and years of experience in courts of all types on a daily basis. My only claim is to have had the honour of being a member of my local magistrates Bench for over 30 years and to have served as its chairman at a very interesting time in its history.
	This is an important and necessary Bill and one that we hope will improve the efficiency of the court system, as I believe this is a key to respect for justice in this country. A more efficient system where cases are processed more quickly would enable victims of crime to put their experiences behind them and continue with their lives.
	However, we do have concerns regarding the Bill. The first of these relates to fines. The most frequent penalty imposed by magistrates is a financial one. The enforcement of these fines has always seemed to me an essential element of sentencing policy. The fine imposed has been, or should have been, the result of thorough scrutiny of the defendant's financial and personal situation. It is therefore vital that the fine is paid as directed by the court, and if not the defendant must be brought back to court to explain why not.
	I remember some years ago when a defendant was giving his reasons to the court as to why he had not sent the agreed weekly sum as ordered and promised. Quoting his outgoings he said that he had rented a new television that was costing him £10 per week. As he was on benefit he was asked if he did not think that was excessive. In reply he said not at all, it was a 32-inch screen and very good value. His weekly contribution to the payment of his fine obviously figured low on his list of priorities until it was pointed out in no uncertain terms that if he did not pay as directed then something unpleasant would happen and a more serious penalty would be imposed. Inability to pay can always be approached with sensitivity and understanding, but unwillingness to pay should not be tolerated.
	I have never understood why it was considered unacceptable for interest to be added if a fine was just ignored. After all, in any hire-purchase scheme, where there is a default high rates of interest are added. To leave the level unaltered is unfair to those who often make sacrifices to pay on time. Therefore I was pleased to note that the Government were addressing this issue in the Bill. We understand there would be sanctions for those who simply would not pay but I must confess to being unsure how these would work in practice.
	We are told, for example, that if a person does not pay his fine his car may be clamped as a penalty. However, this seems an arduous and time-consuming task. The new fines officers would have to find the offender's car, make sure it is not co-owned with an innocent party, clamp the car and presumably value it if it does have to be sold to pay the fine, all of which sounds an expensive process and does not seem to be an effective use of the resource of the new fines officers.
	One of our main concerns with the Bill is that we feel most strongly that giving these fines officers the power to increase and decrease fines for early or late payment is wrong. These officers—who could be civil servants, but it seems that they could also be the employees of a private company; the Bill does not seem to prevent this—would exercise a power that should only ever be exercised at the discretion of the court. Any possible increase or decrease should be spelt out at the time of sentence. If fines need to be varied, this should be the job of the magistrates. Otherwise this surely has implications for the Human Rights Act. People have a right to a fair and public hearing and, if convicted, the right to be punished by an independent and impartial tribunal.
	Continuing on the subject of fines, while we welcome a clear structure, we are concerned that a national framework of standards and direction may mean the Government set rigid targets which would interfere with the application of justice. I hope we can obtain an assurance that this would not be the case.
	Another major concern we have with the Bill is the Government's plans to abolish the magistrates' courts committees, which are made up of local magistrates and other local figures, and replace them with court administration councils. This change puzzles me somewhat, as in the White Paper on which this Bill is based, Justice for All, the Government stated that court management decisions would be taken locally by local management boards. The White Paper clearly stated:
	"We expect the decision making to be decentralised to the local management boards, so that resources can be managed flexibly to meet local requirements".
	However, after reading the Bill, I do not think the new CACs meet these requirements. Far from providing genuine local management and accountability of local justice, they appear to be merely consultative bodies with no real power other than the rather ambiguous "red card" rights to refer any issue to the national level, meaning back to the centralised power of the Lord Chancellor. It is also the Lord Chancellor who would appoint the members of CACs and the Lord Chancellor who would provide councils with guidance about the way in which they should discharge their functions, although we are not privy to this information in the Bill. It would be most helpful if the guidance could be published by the time we reach Committee stage.
	It would seem that the only saving grace to these councils is the inclusion of at least one lay magistrate, which we welcome and believe is essential as they will have a real and local knowledge of the needs of justice in the area.
	Having served as a magistrate for many years, I have first-hand knowledge of just how essential it is to have a good working relationship with your justices' clerk. It is a relationship of mutual trust and respect which can be cultivated only over a period of time. I was therefore unhappy to read in the new Bill that justices' clerks will no longer be appointed to a particular petty sessions area as these will no longer exist. I hope that that does not mean that they will no longer be assigned to one particular area. It would be a great loss to the system to disregard the importance of a sustained relationship and most disruptive to the working of the court.
	I should also like to mention the appointment of lay justices in the Duchy of Lancaster. This has traditionally been the responsibility of the Duchy and is yet another provision in this Bill which moves power to the Lord Chancellor.
	Lastly, I understand that Clause 11 will replace Sections 7 to 9 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 which has the effect of abolishing supplemental lists. I must state that I am wholeheartedly opposed to this measure which strikes me as a mean spirited attack on people who have given at least 15 years of their life to the Bench and the community. This is an issue which we shall oppose unreservedly. Those on the supplemental list often, for example, sign passports and witness signatures which save many people the chore of finding an appropriate person. It costs no money to retain a list and gives pleasure to a magistrate on retirement to be included on what might be called a "roll of honour".
	I fear that this Bill, like so many that come before your Lordships' House, is described as decentralising by the Government yet on study reveals that it is completely the opposite. It takes power to the centre and leaves the Lord Chancellor in control at the expense of local autonomy.
	Much of this important Bill is acceptable but I am sure that as it proceeds through the House there will be many issues which will cause lively debate. On these Benches we look forward to the challenge of ensuring that it will go to another place a better Bill which will improve justice throughout the country.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there is much in the Bill that we on these Benches welcome. Several of its parts raise no issues of principle although their detail may still need to be reviewed. Those include Part 4 on the enhancement of court security, Part 5 on the inspection of courts' administration and Part 6 on the changes to the titles of the judiciary and judicial flexibility.
	By far the most controversial element—it is seriously controversial—is the abolition of the magistrates' courts committees and the replacement of them, and of the Court Service, by a new agency accountable to the Lord Chancellor. We would be willing to accept the principle of merger but we would do so only on the basis that the Bill provided for a high degree of devolution to local management, and the Bill does not so provide.
	On the face of the Bill the court administration councils will have only a consultative role and no executive role. They are not a replacement for the magistrates' courts committees. Management matters will be solely a matter for the executive agency. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill about how that agency will actually work. There is nothing in the Bill that even recognises its existence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, pointed out, the Government stated in their White Paper that management decisions would be taken by community-focused local management boards. That proposal has been scrapped. According to the latest proposal in the statement that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor placed in the Library last week, decisions at the local level will be taken by local chief officers. The statement says that the court administration committees will work in partnership with the local chief officers.
	The statement makes some helpful remarks. It states in paragraphs 14 and 15:
	"On issues of particular importance chief officers will be required to seek the agreement of the local council. At the beginning of the year councils will approve the area strategic plan, its staffing structures and recruitment and retention strategy and spending priorities for the year. The relationship between the local council and the chief officer will be crucial to an area's success. Councils will be involved in the selection of the local chief officer. In addition, councils will have a right of access to the national chief executive about any issue including managerial performance".
	Those remarks are welcome and go some but by no means all the way to meeting our objections, or they would do so if they were on the face of the Bill. But there is nothing of that on the face of the Bill itself. The proposal regarding the involvement of the court administration councils could, under the Bill, be revoked instantly without any parliamentary involvement whatsoever. We need to ensure that the role of the court administration councils will be spelt out much more fully on the face of the Bill. Details of the councils' role should be contained in a statutory instrument subject to scrutiny by Parliament and not simply in guidance subject to no parliamentary control whatsoever. We also need guarantees that members of the court administration councils will be appointed on the basis of the Nolan rules and appointments will be subject to supervision by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	I must make clear that we on these Benches will not support the abolition of magistrates' courts committees unless the court administration councils are given wider and more effective powers on the face of the Bill. What we want is the equivalent for courts of NHS trusts. What the Bill offers is the equivalent of community health councils and that will not do.
	I turn to other matters. We are concerned about the provision in Clause 2 to contract out non-judicial services. We do not necessarily object to that in principle. Some services could, indeed, be contracted out. But, even so, we think that the decision, for example, to contract out the role of providing court security to a private security agency, which is clearly a possibility, should be taken only after consultation with the four senior judges. Can we be assured that the duties of fines officers are not among those that can be contracted out?
	I wish to consider the role of fines officers whose establishment we welcome in principle. The provision appears to apply only to fines imposed by the magistrates' courts. Why cannot it be extended to fines imposed by the Crown Court as well? There is no doubt that the rate of fine collection is too low. The recent report of the Public Accounts Committee shows that the collection of fines is both ineffective and almost random throughout the country. For instance, rates of collection are 34 per cent in urban Merseyside; 86 per cent in urban West Yorkshire; 89 per cent in rural Dorset; and 36 per cent in rural Cambridgeshire. Having a fines officer with the specific duty of collecting fines is a good idea, although we are concerned that in magistrates' courts the power will be exercisable by the clerk and not necessarily by the magistrates themselves. We certainly support discounts for prompt payment. However, we have reservations about the proposed increase in the fine itself on default. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I believe that there is much to be said for requiring the payment of interest on default rather than an increase in the fine itself. We believe that an injustice could arise if an increase in the fine itself is imposed that is not linked to the length of the default. It is true that the most vulnerable people are likely to have the most difficulty in paying.
	The most controversial element in the role of the fines officer is the clamping order. It could lead to the loss of the defendant's job, if the defendant uses his car for his job or for travelling to his job when there is no available public transport. Clamping could penalise someone other than the fine payer who needs the car for similar purposes—the defendant's spouse or partner, for example. If the defendant uses a car registered in someone else's name, a clamping order cannot be made, which might encourage people not to register vehicle transfers, to register a transfer in someone else's name or to obtain a bogus disabled badge. If clamping orders are to be made at all, which we believe is doubtful, although we accept that there should be pilot trials, they should be made only by a magistrates' court and not by a fines officer.
	We have no objection to the change in judicial titles in Part 6, but we wonder whether it should not be extended to Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. When, as is long overdue, a woman is appointed as a Law Lord, will she remain as a Lord of Appeal rather than a Lady of Appeal? Why should the Law Lords be described as "ordinary"? Some of them are extremely extraordinary.
	Passing on to Part 7 and the rules of procedure, we welcome plans for unified, criminal and family procedure rules, with their own rules committees, on the model of the civil procedure rules. However, we are concerned that power is to be given to the Lord Chancellor to alter the rules made by the various rules committees. A power to alter is, in effect, a power to make rules. The old arrangement for the Supreme Court Rules Committee and, later, for the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, provided for the necessary agreement of the Lord Chancellor to rules for the High Court and Court of Appeal. Agreement is one thing, but we believe that there should be no unilateral power on the Lord Chancellor to alter the rules. If the Lord Chancellor does not like the new rules, he is entitled to refuse to approve them. He can indicate to the committee what rules he would approve, and a compromise could no doubt be negotiated. We are wholly against the unilateral power of default. The same principles should apply to the criminal and family rules.
	Fee orders, which are currently subject to no parliamentary control, should be made subject to that control. Some two years ago, the Lord Chancellor's Department increased court fees sharply. We believed that the move posed a serious threat to access to justice and wanted to challenge it but were unable to do so. It may be a convention that fee orders are not made subject to parliamentary control; if so, it is a bad convention that should be abandoned. Fees can, we believe, be a real deterrent to litigants and should be subject to control.
	We welcome third party costs orders, but plainly the third parties must have the right to challenge allegations of misconduct at a proper hearing.
	We strongly welcome the power to order the payment of damages by periodic payments as an alternative to payment by lump sums. However, that raises a number of points. First, we would like an assurance that the payments would have to be index linked, so that the real value does not decline as time goes on. Secondly, we agree that the right to payments should not be capable of being assigned, but we want to know what the position will be on the insolvency of the claimant. Will the trustee in bankruptcy have a right to seize future payments and, if so, on what condition?
	Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we have received representations from representatives of the insurance business, pointing out the difficulties for insurers if payments are capable of being varied subsequent to the conclusion of the court proceedings. A strong case has been made out for at least providing that the power to vary should be exercisable only in a limited period from the time of the reward, so that the potential for increases is not left hanging indefinitely over the heads of the insurers for what could be decades rather than years.
	I turn to a few general points. First, the Bill contains several Henry VIII clauses. Not all of them require the affirmative procedure when the statutory instrument to exercise the powers is introduced. After the row at the end of the previous Session over the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, I believe that we should move to a general rule that Henry VIII clauses should require the exercise of the affirmative procedure, even if the changes are minor, consequential and transitional. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is making a face, but it is an important matter of principle that primary legislation should be capable of being changed only by statutory instruments that receive the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
	Secondly, the administration of family courts is left in its existing condition—that is, it is still highly fragmented. That requires unification as well.
	Thirdly, with regard to a wider reform of the court system, I regret that the Bill contains no modification of the circuit system. It dates back to the days of Henry II, who used it as a means of imposing royal authority throughout the kingdom. The assize system has been much modified in recent years, but the time has now come for the abolition of the system whereby High Court judges have to spend several months a year on the circuit. That must be a deterrent to the acceptance of office, especially for women. We should set up permanent High Court centres in each region of England and Wales, staffed by judges based in that region.
	To sum up, there are strong objections to the abolition of the magistrates' courts committees unless the Bill provides for much greater devolution of powers over magistrates' courts to locally based court administration committees. That is an example of the continued centralising tendency of the current Government. We give a welcome, but in some respects a critical welcome, to the rest of the Bill.

Lord Woolf: My Lords, so far as I am aware, I am unique among chief justices around the world in being able to address your Lordships directly. I value that privilege but I am conscious that it should be used sparingly. I personally reserve its use for occasions when I consider that it will help the House in its deliberations to be aware of the judiciary's views on prospective legislation or other issues.
	During the current Session this House is to debate two Bills that will have a major impact on the administration of justice: the Courts Bill, which is before your Lordships today, and the Criminal Justice Bill, which has just had its Second Reading in the other place. Because of its practical experience, the judiciary is, I believe, in a position to make a positive contribution to the debate on both Bills. I must warn your Lordships that not only am I intervening today; I propose to do so again on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
	Subject to certain comments which I shall make later, I am glad to make it clear that the judiciary welcomes the Courts Bill. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the extent to which his officials consulted the judiciary on the Bill and, where appropriate, took account of its views. The result, I believe, is a better Bill, although I recognise that going through the procedures in Parliament it may be improved further.
	Your Lordships will be well aware that the criminal justice system has suffered as a result of its constituent parts failing to work together effectively. There has been a deep divide between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards establishing a unified criminal court with a unified administration. That unified approach, together with the changes proposed in Parts 2 and 6, should enable greater flexibility in the deployment of magistrates and judges. It should also ensure that cases are heard by judges of the appropriate level irrespective of the location of the hearing.
	The senior judges are already holding discussions with magistrates and, I hope, making it clear that we—the judiciary—welcome magistrates joining the wider judicial family. My only concern with regard to the proposals that try to bring magistrates' courts and the Crown Court closer together is whether lack of resources will prevent full advantage being taken of that initiative.
	What could help to ensure the success of the new unified approach is what at first sight may appear an unimportant reform. The criminal courts have lacked a common criminal code of procedure. In his seminal report, Sir Robin Auld recommended the establishment of a single criminal procedure rule committee whose task—under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice of the day—would be to produce a new procedural code and keep that code up to date.
	As a result of the Access to Justice reforms, there is already such a civil procedure rule committee. It has made a significant contribution towards improving the civil justice system. The new criminal procedure rule committee will face a considerable challenge. Members of this House who are lawyers will, I believe, confirm that the plethora of criminal justice legislation of recent years has created a criminal justice system that is highly technical and of labyrinthine complexity. Indeed, one of our High Court judges recently approached me and said that his difficulty when sentencing a prisoner was to know whether it was better to pass the sentence and then ask the prisoner to sit down while going through the loops that judges are required to go through when sentencing, or to go through the loops first and then pass the sentence. That should not be so. If the new rule committee is given the opportunity, it will replace those technicalities—and the complexities—with contemporary flexible and efficient procedures. Because of the width of its membership and the standing of the proposed members of the committee, I also believe that the rules it produces will have the confidence of both sides of the profession as well as of the judiciary.
	It is the shared sense of ownership that lies behind the success of the civil rules. One of the problems with the present multiple criminal rules of procedure is that there is no such sense of ownership. Unfortunately, ignoring the proposed role of the new criminal procedure rule committee, which will be established by this Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill, if enacted in its present form, will add to the existing statutory procedural complexity and contribute to the delay in proceedings which I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to reduce.
	The Home Secretary appealed at Second Reading to people with a longstanding professional involvement and interest to play their part in making the Criminal Justice Bill a better Bill. I hope that the judiciary falls within that description because I have made recommendations on this aspect of the Bill. I am still awaiting an indication of whether they are to be accepted. I shall report back to the House in due course about how fortunate I am in having my recommendations accepted.
	I shall spend my remaining time on Clause 87 which changes the role of the senior judiciary in relation to the setting of court fees. At present, the setting of court fees requires the consent of the respective heads of division. That was designed to provide a protection against excessive fees. But a predicament was created for the heads of the judiciary. To explain why the judiciary wants to give up what should be a valuable safeguard for civil litigants it is necessary shortly to summarise the background.
	Historically, the cost of court accommodation and salaries and pensions of judges was borne by the state, the rest of the running costs being paid by fees levied on litigants. In the early 1980s, it was decided that accommodation costs should henceforth be borne by litigants by way of fees. In 1992, it was decided that judicial salaries should also be funded by litigants through fees. That significant change of policy was apparently made without any formal announcement or debate in Parliament. The current Treasury policy maintains that the full costs of the civil courts should be recovered from fee income less agreed exceptions, remissions and subsidies. I suggest that that policy is totally misconceived; so do the other heads of division. It ignores the public function that civil law and litigation perform; it ignores the social importance of civil law. For example, it ignores the fact that an appeal decision not only relates to the dispute in an individual case; it is also laying down the law for the future. It is not only important for the parties to the proceeding but also to other litigants who have similar disputes which require resolution.
	As to accommodation, as noble Lords know, many of the courts are historic buildings—for example, the Royal Courts of Justice, which is the flagship of the common law system around the world. It is an absurdity, I suggest, that the cost of the Royal Courts of Justice should be taken into account and given a capital value in working out what court fees should be. That policy also ignores the costs of modernising the civil justice system. Under the present regime, the senior judiciary has felt compelled to agree levels of fees about which they are most unhappy. More importantly, the senior judiciary has, in doing so, apparently endorsed a totally misconceived and unrealistic policy of the Treasury. The practical result is that the civil justice system is being starved of resources. The gains achieved as a result of the Access to Justice reforms, rigorously supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, are in grave danger of being lost.
	Our commercial court is celebrated around the world, the majority of its cases involving at least one litigant from abroad. Its present accommodation, I am ashamed to say, is a disgrace and plans that the Lord Chancellor had to replace it have had to be postponed for the time being and, I suspect, indefinitely. Throughout England and Wales, courts are deprived of the technology which has been repeatedly promised and which should be at the heart of the civil justice reforms to which I have referred. Those courts are struggling to provide an adequate service, relying on the loyalty of the judiciary and the staff. Whether they will be able to continue to achieve that is open to question. The Government's recent spending review suggests that providing a satisfactory system of civil justice for the citizens of this country is towards the bottom of the political agenda. It is forgotten that at stake can be a member of the public's home, a widow's damages or a citizen's human rights. That position is not tolerable.

Education and Skills Spending Plans

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
	"In July, my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced the outcome of the 2002 spending review. He stated that education spending will increase by an average of 6 per cent a year in real terms over the three years beginning in April 2003.
	"Following that announcement, my predecessor, the right honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley, published our agenda for change, Investment for Reform. This set out how we would match those extra resources with sustained reform to achieve our objectives of a world-class education and training system that meets the needs of individuals and the economy.
	"I now want to tell the House more about these investment and reform plans. With the exception of higher education, about which an announcement will be made next January, I am today announcing the details of our three-year settlement for the whole education and skills sector. I begin with the early years.
	"This Government remain of the view that a strong early start is vital to continued educational success. So, as the Chancellor announced in July, we will continue our substantial investment in the early years, including our Sure Start programme, and will fund a further expansion of 250,000 childcare places.
	"Working together with my colleagues in other government departments, particularly in the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions, we will continue to expand our Sure Start programme and to mainstream the approaches in those areas which we believe have been successful.
	"As the Chancellor announced in July, expenditure on early years and childcare will rise from about £1 billion this year to some £1.5 billion in 2005–06. Next year, £300 million will be transferred to enable local authorities to provide universal nursery provision for three year-olds.
	"I turn now to the subject of schools, which will form the majority of my Statement today. The reforms that I am announcing will provide a simpler, fairer system. Alongside those, we are seeking a continued drive to raise standards in every school in the country.
	"Last week, my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced the outcome of the review of local authority funding. As he announced, the national average increase in overall funding for schools and local education authorities is 6.5 per cent. Moreover, every local authority will next year receive an increase in funding per pupil of at least 3.2 per cent.
	"The new system provides every local authority with a basic entitlement per pupil, plus more money for authorities with significant deprivation or recruitment and retention difficulties. Our three-year funding announcement means that we are giving local authorities certainty about their budgets in future years, so they can in turn give schools indicative three-year budgets, and we expect them to do so. This will enable head teachers and governing bodies to plan and implement longer-term reforms.
	"As my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced last Thursday, the Government are committed to allowing local authorities more freedom over the use of resources. Ring-fenced grants will form a reducing proportion of local spending.
	"So, on top of the £4.3 billion increase by 2005–06 in local authority general education funding which we have already announced, substantial funds will be moved from central Department for Education and Skills spending to local authority spending. This will be an extra £500 million in 2003–04, and a further £800 million in 2005–06.
	"That means that, by 2005–06, over 92 per cent of all schools funding will be allocated through local authorities in accordance with local priorities. Thus we will end the ring-fenced grants from my department for the following programmes: in 2003–04, grants for nursery education for three year-olds; funding for infant class sizes; the school improvement grant; school inclusion—pupil support; performance management; and induction for newly qualified teachers.
	"In 2004–05, in addition, we will do the same with grants for: special educational needs; study support; 'Golden Hello' payments; advanced skills teachers; school support staff; drugs education; and teacher sabbaticals. We shall also focus grants for the national literacy and numeracy strategies and the key stage 3 national strategy.
	"The substantial increases in local authority funding that I have set out will enable them to take over the delivery of these important programmes in ways that meet local needs. We shall of course closely monitor the effects of these changes.
	"From 2005-06, we are also reforming the system for rewarding those good, experienced teachers who pass the performance 'threshold'. The money for teachers who pass the threshold will be devolved to the schools budget. In the New Year, we shall announce further measures to strengthen performance management in schools and cut associated bureaucracy. We shall also discuss with all stakeholders measures to ensure that the allocation of the money meets the cost of the threshold payments made by schools.
	"However, we will continue with ring-fenced funding to provide national drive in some key areas. Three key grants will contribute to this aim. The first is the leadership incentive grant with £175 million a year for each of the next three years. We will provide £125,000 to each of 1,400 secondary schools in the inner cities and in challenging circumstances beyond. This money is being provided because it is clear that a good head teacher and leadership team is the key to raising expectations and achievement in schools. This grant will support them.
	"This money will be used in a variety of ways; for example, including strengthening poorly performing departments, helping strong departments to help other schools, buying in specialist advice on leadership, or working together with other schools to provide leadership training. And, particularly in the weakest schools, the money can be used to change the leadership of the school.
	"One purpose of this money is to encourage local schools to behave in a more collaborative fashion, and it will be for local schools to decide how best to use the money to strengthen their leadership teams. But I will reserve powers to ensure that the weakest schools make effective use of the money.
	"The second is the school standards grant, which will provide £800 million in 2003–04 rising to £875 million by 2005–06. This money will be paid direct to schools and is intended to drive forward reform of the school workforce. It will allow more and better trained teaching assistants to be employed to help the school team to work together more effectively. As we made clear in July, our substantial extra investment in the school standards grant must be matched by a commitment from unions and employers to a restructured teaching profession and a reformed school workforce—more flexible, more diverse and more focused on raising standards. We are making good progress towards an agreement, but the resources will not be released until a satisfactory agreement is reached.
	"Thirdly, the standards fund, which will provide about £1.5 billion in each of the next three years, will enable schools to galvanise reform on standards, behaviour and choice. In 2003–04, this will allow us to support the following programmes, among others: key stage 3 strategy, £120 million from DfES in 2003–04; ethnic minority achievement, £80 million; music services, £60 million; Excellence in Cities and Excellence Clusters, £290 million; and school support staff and training, £170 million.
	"For specialist schools, we will, as I announced a couple of weeks ago, provide sufficient funding to enable every secondary school that meets the required standard to become a specialist school. And it will provide support for primary literacy and numeracy. We are determined to build on the outstanding improvements that our primary schools have made since 1998.
	"The national literacy and numeracy strategies have transformed standards, but we know that there is much more to be done to achieve the ambitious targets that we have set. We will therefore continue to provide funding and support focused on those schools that are underperforming in comparison to similar schools.
	"Schools will have the freedom to spend their standards fund budget on any purpose provided that they deliver the improvements in standards, behaviour and choice that we need. We have already given the details to local authorities and we are looking for significant improvements in outcomes.
	"I am also today publishing details of the capital funding that schools will get to improve and modernise schools buildings. A typical secondary school will get £75,000 of devolved capital funding next year, rising to £87,000 by 2005–06.
	"This is part of a total investment in school buildings that, including Private Finance Initiative credits, will rise from £3 billion in the current year to £3.8 billion in 2003–04, £4.5 billion in 2004–05 and over £5 billion by 2005–06.
	"Though this represents a seven-fold increase on capital spending since 1996–97, it remains true that the condition of too many school buildings has suffered decades of underinvestment. The extra resources which I am announcing today do mark very substantial extra resources to provide clean, modern, secure places for children to learn.
	"I have today announced a real terms increase in school funding of over 7 per cent from 2002-03 to 2003-04, which will be followed by annual real terms increases of more than 4 per cent and 5 per cent, a total over the three years of the spending review of over 17 per cent in real terms. This means an average real terms increase in revenue funding per pupil of over £1,000, from some £2,840 to £3,850 in the 10 years between 1996-97 to 2005-06.
	"Finally, I turn to further education and skills. The importance of this area cannot be overstated: developing the skills of our people is critical to improving our productivity, and therefore to the economic and social future of this country.
	"We have to transform the performance of the learning and skills sector. We need to make it far more responsive to the needs of learners, employers and communities. We need to raise the quality of the sector and increase the achievement of those studying and learning in the sector.
	"The document I published last month, Success for All, sets out our work on the further education reform strategy, and our challenge to the further education sector.
	"In all this, we will work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to co-ordinate the work of the departments more effectively.
	"We are investing to match our ambition. I have already announced £1.2 billion for reforms to further education at the Association of Colleges' conference on 19th November. This forms part of the Learning and Skills Council's budget which I announced last week, which will increase by £1.4 billion, reaching a total of £9.2 billion by 2005-06. This means an increase on total spending on skills from £8.6 billion in 2002-03 to over £10 billion in 2005-06. This represents a real terms increase over the spending review period of almost 12 per cent.
	"As the Chancellor made clear in his Pre-Budget Statement a fortnight ago, at a time when we face economic uncertainty it is more important than ever that we continue to invest and reform to drive up the skills of our people and improve our productivity as a nation.
	"The very substantial investment in education and skills funding, which I have announced today, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for raising standards in our schools and colleges, tackling the attainment gap and creating a world-class system of education and training at all ages.
	"These will be achieved only if, in addition to investing, we also reform our schools and colleges so that they genuinely meet the aspirations of every child. That will be the ultimate test of our success at the end of this spending review period.
	"I am confident that, with the help of all those millions of people throughout our country who are committed to our educational success, we will pass that test".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In the past few days my noble friend Lady Blatch skilfully exposed the attempts by the Chancellor on 27th November to give an impression that spending on education would increase by £45 billion by 2006. We now know that the actual figure is to be £15 billion. Let us hope that our ailing economy can sustain increased spending even on that scale.
	Before she replies on LEA points, will the Minister say nothing about cash for higher education in 2003–04? Can she not say what percentage of the £9 billion funding gap identified by UK universities she hopes to fill? Can she confirm that top-up fees have been ruled out, as stated by the Prime Minister?
	I turn to nursery education. Previous ring-fenced payments for nursery children are now to be subsumed in general grant funding. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance to the House that money still will be provided to each local authority to pay for the actual number of three and four year-olds in their areas, as Ministers pledged in the past? Will she publish a table showing a hypothecated element paid for nursery education for each LEA? If she does not agree to do that, many will fear that the Government are quietly abandoning their commitment to fund fully-fledged nursery education for every child.
	I turn to schools. Has the noble Baroness seen the widespread concern expressed by local authorities about the settlement this year? The LGA has commented that whereas in the past elements in the overall school grant were weighted according to established local spending needs, from 2003–04 they are set by ministerial judgment. Is not that jargon for politics taking the place of need? Is not that why so much money in the settlement has been channelled away from authorities in the South, which serve their children well, to incompetent and high-spending Labour councils facing elections next year?
	We broadly welcome any move that leaves more money to local discretion and reduces central control. So, we welcome the fact that Ministers are dropping the running of 12 ring-fenced grants by the DfES. Can the Minister tell the House how many civil servant posts will be saved in the DfES as a result of those changes? Can she assure the House that in the event of any regional assemblies being set up, those assemblies will not have the power to ring fence money in that way?
	Among the central initiatives being pruned is the much vaunted literacy and numeracy strategy. Does that mean that the Government accept some of the recent criticisms of the defects of that strategy? If not, why is spending being reduced at a time when figures still show desperately worrying levels among young children of an inability to read and add up? Is not that shuffle from centralising gimmicks back to local funding making up policy on the hoof? Can the Minister say more about the so-called leadership incentive grant, a title which in itself suggests Ministers still think they know more about how to run a school than governors and head teachers?
	There is talk in the Statement of up to £175 million per year being used to buy services from other schools or alternatively to sell them. Will that involve Ministers investing taxpayers' money in companies being set up by schools? Can the Minister assure the House that reserve powers will not be used to force schools to buy services from companies backed with public money?
	The Statement boasts of over £5 billion of PFI credits in 2005-06. Will that count against totals for public borrowing? Can the Minister give the House some idea of the scale of the extra money that will be needed to make up the value of pension funds for teachers and other LEA staff, which the Chancellor has done so much to erode? Can she tell the House the cost to schools and local authorities of the 1 per cent national insurance charge coming in next April?
	Perhaps I may also ask about plans for teachers' pay. The Statement refers to £875 million going to schools only in the event of,
	"a commitment from unions and employers to a restructured teaching profession and a reformed school workforce".
	We welcome any sensible reforms, but does that not sound suspiciously like the strategy that gave us the fire dispute? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will not intervene behind the scenes in talks between unions and employers? Does she accept that withholding money from schools would not be a proper weapon in an industrial dispute?
	What is meant by the claim that:
	"Schools will have the freedom to spend their standards fund budget on any purpose providing they deliver the improvements . . . that we need"?
	What kind of freedom is that? It will take time for each local authority and school to read behind the words of the Statement to find out exactly what is meant for them. When the Government say that they will decentralise, we hope that they mean what they say, but the lesson of the past few years is that centralising gimmicks do not work—as the genuine decentralisation of the previous Government in the great success of grant-maintained schools so obviously did. We have had six wasted years, far too much bureaucratic intervention and far too little trust in teachers and schools. Trust would be more precious to schools than any amount of money.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches always welcome any extra money for education, and the basic entitlement principle is certainly to be welcomed. The new system is slightly clearer. The distribution data are more up-to-date, relevant and reliable. However, ambiguity remains—a point to which I shall return in a moment.
	Long-term planning is always a good idea. When people know how much is coming in future years, they can spend money more sensibly. So three-year budgeting should help schools, but how can it if they do not know how much they will have to pay staff? Again, I shall return to that point.
	How much of the 7 per cent increase will come from PFI capital? Can the Minister confirm whether LEAs will now have to pay the full liability for meeting the needs of the teachers' pension fund?
	However, despite that welcome, the Government have not given up their addiction to spin. When we read the figures carefully it is clear that, when additional liabilities and reductions in grant are taken into account, next year investment in education will be lower than was announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review by not £250 million but £400 million. What undertakings can the Minister give about the remaining years—the second and third years? Will there be further cuts? If so, how will that affect schools' ability to plan?
	As the money will not be coming from the Government, will the Minister confirm that the level of spending assumed by Government will require an increase in council tax of about 9 per cent? Council tax payers will have to pay for that increase in educational spending. That is a bit like me announcing to my children that their pocket money is to be increased, but that they must go to the man down the road to get the extra money.
	Although we welcome the devolving of distribution of funding to local authorities, too much is still provided through centrally managed initiatives, such as the leadership incentive grant and the specialist schools programme. The Government have missed an opportunity to drop the entrance fee for specialist school status. However, we should have liked one grant to be ring-fenced. The transfer of threshold management and performance related pay removes any pretence that that scheme can deliver a fair deal for teachers. Can the Minister continue to guarantee that performance related pay will be paid on the basis of actual performance rather than pressure on local budgets? If not, she must expect a great deal of unhappiness among teachers, as the Government will have broken a key pledge made to them when the scheme was introduced.
	The standards fund grants are still dependent on matching funding, have bureaucratic, political strings attached and are still distributed in crude tranches. Do the Government have any plans to improve accessibility to that money? There will be new cliff edges as a result of the new system. For example, for all area-based initiatives, such as Excellence in Cities, there is a risk that neighbouring schools with similar needs will receive very different levels of funding. The leadership incentive grant will be available to Excellence in Cities schools and schools chosen on the basis of low attainment at GCSE and free school meals. That is a fudge. Vulnerable schools outside Excellence in Cities areas will have every right to resent schools in easier circumstances inside those areas receiving larger grants.
	Unfortunately, the Statement represents too many missed opportunities. The Government have not taken the opportunity to ally financial and academic years. They have not brought forward the School Teachers' Review Body pay recommendations, so that schools and LEAs will know what the numbers will mean. How can they plan for three years unless they know that? The Government's explanation of why they dropped three years' work on an activity-led formula is wholly unconvincing.
	The Minister mentioned the commitment to a restructured teaching profession and negotiations with unions and employers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, mentioned, the Government's recent track record on negotiation with public servants is not a happy one. How will the Government ensure that the negotiations will result in a more, rather than less, motivated teaching workforce?

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Order!

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for giving me a plethora of questions to attempt to answer; I shall certainly try to do so. I hope that, buried beneath their comments, was a welcome for some of my comments on our commitment to schools and education.
	I shall not dwell on my question and answer session with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the Chancellor's words; I have already dealt with that as far as I can. It is perfectly clear in my mind; I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would say the same, were she here. Equally, I shall say little about higher education. I appreciate that noble Lords are keen for me to say as much as possible about that but, as my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made clear, we shall be making a major announcement in January, which we shall of course debate in your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was clear in what he said and we of course support his words.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, mentioned nursery grants and ensuring that the Government would not stop paying for all three year-olds. That commitment is absolutely firm. We are giving that money to local authorities. They will be able to continue with their own plans. It is an aspiration that some of them may be able to achieve universal support for three year-olds in nursery education earlier, but we are in no way abandoning nursery education for our three and four year-olds. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that that is an important beginning for our youngest children.
	I do not know what are the consequences for civil servants. We are proud of our civil servants in the Department for Education and Skills. Personally, I should hate to lose any of them, but we have made clear that part of this announcement is about ensuring that money is devolved from the DfES to local education authorities and schools—something for which noble Lords have argued for some time.
	We do not accept that the literacy and numeracy strategy is flawed; we accept that we need to do more to support schools that are not achieving with their children what other schools are achieving in similar circumstances. That is an important part of our strategy.
	Both noble Baronesses asked about the leadership incentive grant. As I said in the Statement, we shall be using it to support 1,400 schools, and I mentioned the need for schools to work closely together. We want to ensure that there is the opportunity to provide the one thing that we know can make a difference—that, as noble Lords will be aware, has transformed schools—quality of leadership. We therefore want to give support to the head teachers and leadership team of schools that face challenging circumstances.
	Reserved powers will not be used to force schools to buy services from school companies; that is not their purpose. For pensions, there will be a separate grant to cover employer contributions. I did not want to announce that and, therefore, possibly be accused of putting it in as a separate figure. I hope that that will answer the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Seccombe.
	It is not a question of the Government interfering in the negotiations between the unions and the employers, but I believe that what we have said about changes in the workforce and the strategy that we have for that is right: it is important that we have the right kind of workforce. In your Lordships' House, we have talked for some time about the need to ensure that we engage with adults who can contribute and have contributed in schools. We must ensure that teachers can teach and that there are adults available to support them in that role by taking on some of the other tasks and challenges that teachers face.
	I shall answer the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked: I think that a three-year budget is important for long-term planning. I cannot answer her question about the 7 per cent PFI capital. It was an interesting question, and I shall write to the noble Baroness with specific details about that, unless something wings its way to me in the mean time.
	We have created a £3 million partnership fund for specialist schools. The fund is to support schools that are having difficulty in finding the £50,000. The fund will provide the full amount or part of the amount. We will look for a demonstration that schools have contributed to improvement, growth and development in the community, which is part of what we are trying to achieve with specialist school status, and have sought to involve people in that work, including the securing of financial contributions. The money is there to address the specific points that the noble Baroness raised.
	Substantial increases in education funding for local authorities have already been provided for in the spending review. I said in the Statement that there would be £4.3 billion more by 2005–06 before any transfer of DfES grant to local authorities. On top of that, the department is transferring £500 million from grant in 2003–04 and 2004–05 and a total of £1,340 million from grant to local authorities in 2005–06. By 2005–06, schools and LEAs will get £5.5 billion more than in 2002–03. To me, if to nobody else, that sounds like an increase.
	There is no change in the position on the threshold for 2003–04 to 2004–05. Every teacher will be covered in a per capita payment. In 2005–06, we will transfer that payment into local funding, as part of the general commitment to reduce ring-fencing. However, on the basis of rising budgets, we are confident that, with our partners, we can find ways to ensure that resources are available. I hope that that addresses that point for the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I will, of course, write to noble Lords on any points that I have failed to address.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I apologise for leaping to my feet so enthusiastically—and prematurely.
	The increased funding set out in the Statement is welcome. I have just come from a meeting of a school governing body, at which we assessed the performance of the head. I want to raise two issues that have been covered already, as I want to talk more about them: one is about leadership and the other is about nursery education.
	Leadership is crucial to the formation of a good school, particularly if the school works in difficult circumstances. Can my noble friend say a little about the role of OFSTED and other inspectors and the role of governing bodies in developing and ensuring good leadership?
	Guaranteed nursery education is also crucial. I thought that the Government had made their policy on it absolutely clear. How will schools, particularly in the early years, link with other bodies in local inter-sectoral initiatives to support children such as the Department of Health's children's trusts?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, OFSTED plays an important role in determining how effective the leadership of the school is. I believe that I have visited the school to which my noble friend referred. I was very impressed by the quality of leadership from the head teacher. I hesitate to mention the chair of the governing body because I believe that my noble friend is chair of the governing body; I might be accused of sucking up to her, which I would not wish to be seen to do. The role of the governing body is essential, as noble Lords will be aware.
	I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that we have made our position on nursery education clear. Collaborative working—of which children's trusts and children's centres are a good example—is part of the reason why I have been created a joint Minister for the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. As we develop our budgets, we want to ensure that local authorities can use the moneys appropriately—particularly in the early years—to support our children. That is part of the reason for the reduction of ring-fencing. Children's trusts, which are being developed by my honourable friend Jacqui Smith at the Department of Health, are designed to develop the process of bringing health, education and social services together to support children and families. It is important that our budgets reflect that.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I refer to the latter part of the Statement, in which the noble Baroness mentioned the learning and skills councils. It was my privilege to visit, a few days ago, the Building Crafts College. It is based in Stratford in east London and provides expert training in woodwork and masonry to a fair number of young people and some adult returners at a high standard of skill.
	It is a small college, and it was strongly represented to me that the college is deeply apprehensive that, under the new arrangements for the learning and skills councils and for funding that the noble Baroness announced, it will be difficult for small, specialist colleges to get a fair crack of the whip. I hope that the noble Baroness will utter some reassuring words that I could draw to the attention of that college.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with great pleasure, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that I can offer him reassurance. We would have failed in our endeavours if, as a result of what we are trying to do, small, specialist colleges offering high-quality training to students were to suffer in any way. That is not what we are trying to achieve—quite the opposite. I hope that the noble Lord will take that message back. If he chooses to write to me, I shall pass the matter on to my appropriate colleague.

Lord Winston: My Lords, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which I once had the honour of chairing, conducted an inquiry into science in schools. We found a severe deficiency in science training, particularly between the ages of 11 and 16, which meant that children left school less scientifically literate and numerate than they should have been.
	One of the issues for the committee was that, whereas Shakespeare and Chaucer do not change from year to year, science is a continually moving target. What plans are there in the new funding arrangements for better personal career development for teachers of science and for such teachers to teach the subjects that they are qualified to teach, rather than teaching all sciences as a blanket subject, as happens too often?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about the importance of science. We have discussed that in your Lordships' House on several occasions.
	In the key stage 3 strategy, which covers children aged from 11 to 14, we have focused on science to allow for the changing nature of science—precisely the reason that the noble Lord gave. We must acquaint our children and young people with the current issues and ensure that they understand how quickly scientific progress is being made. That is also the reason why we have extended "Science Year"—now called "Planet Science"—for a further year. It will do several things. It will recruit ambassadors for science, particularly young, bright, motivating people who can go into schools and help young people to learn. They can encourage them not only to take up science but to continue with it, which is important. It will also help with training materials, through work with partners who can provide the expertise that we need in the training of teachers.
	I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Winston, specific figures. We have announced them, and I am happy to set them out in detail for him. I hope that he will consider that they are good news.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I understood the Minister early in her Statement to say that secondary schools would receive grants of £125,000 for a number of purposes, one of which could be a change in the leadership of the school. She also said that the Government wanted to ensure that weaker schools used the grant in the best possible way. What does that mean? Within the present law, how can £125,000 be used to change the leadership of a school? Does it mean that the Government will ensure that in a weak school they obtain the right leadership? That is important because, to my Scottish soul, it is a strange statement for a Minister to make. I am not aware of exactly how things work in schools in England, but I would like to know what is intended.
	Furthermore, I do not believe that the Minister answered the excellent question from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. How much of the enormous sum of money which the Government are taking from taxpayers to give to schools will come from council tax payers?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the money I have announced today is coming from taxpayers centrally. It is for local authorities to determine what they do in addition. I apologies if I did not answer the question directly, but the money I am focusing on specifically today is that available for local education authorities and for schools.
	The noble Baroness, as always, picks up on the detail. I said that we are providing £125,000 for the 1,400 schools in the inner cities and in challenging circumstances beyond the inner cities. I said, too, that in the weaker schools the money can be used to change the leadership of the school. The focus is on the word "change". Within what I am describing—and we want schools to develop the system for themselves—is the possibility perhaps to buy in the additional support they need in order to support the leadership. We want them to be able, perhaps, to recruit and to use the money in challenging circumstances where additional resources might be needed to attract people of the right calibre to the school. We want them to be able to work in collaboration with other schools, perhaps with more joint working. In other words, we want to make changes by enabling them to say everything from, "We need new leadership in this school and we have the resources to obtain it", to, "We need support and development mechanisms and the additional people coming forward who will help us".

Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister spoke about making further education and skills more responsive to the needs of learners, employers and communities. In my 30 years' experience as an employer, I often found those in conflict. The question which always arose was: to whom does the training belong? Does it belong to the person being trained, who will want to do what he is interested in, or does it belong to the employer who will want him to gain the skills he needs for his business?
	The answer to that—and it may be an answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—is to extend the training and broaden it out. As well as teaching specific skills, we should also teach managing people, productivity through lean manufacturing, basic costing, taking responsibility, ethics and all the other subjects which are increasingly important as we become a service economy. Will the additional funds be directed towards such subjects?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, makes an important point about the value of training. I answer his initial point by saying that this is a partnership. The role we want to have, and the role of the Learning and Skills Council, is to try and identify the needs of the individual in terms of skills training and also, as all good projects have done for a long time, to focus on the skills required by local employers. The routes into employment are fundamental and important.
	As regards the specifics of the training, I fear that my colleagues at the department who have ministerial responsibility might not be too happy if I were to give a categorical assurance of what is to be included. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied if, in response to his comments, which I fully accept, about the need to help train people in a variety of different ways, not least in terms of managerial responsibility, I say that I shall obtain an appropriate and proper answer from the Minister responsible.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I understand the higher education moratorium and the reasons for it, but there is one question that the Minister could answer. As of now, in each year, a residual amount, which she has not been able to announce today, will be set aside for higher education. By what average percentage per annum will that residual amount rise in real terms over the three years beginning April 2003?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sorry. I hate being unable to answer the noble Lord's question in full. However, I cannot prejudge what will be announced in January. Although the noble Lord may believe that the residual amount is a simple calculation, there are within it issues to be discussed about exactly how the funding is to be used. No doubt negotiations and discussions will be required with others outside the department.
	I apologise that I cannot answer the question now. If I can obtain a satisfactory answer, I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library.

Courts Bill [HL]

Second Reading debate resumed.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, the remainder of the debate may take other contributors to it by surprise. However, I had intended to apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having the feeling that the Bill is not the more exciting of the criminal justice Bills being introduced in this parliamentary Session. As seems usual, the other place gets the first crack at the more controversial and interesting Bills and, only after it has finished debating them or, as is so often the case, completed its work without adequately debating them, do the Bills come here. Well, we must today muster as much patience as we can before we tackle the highly charged subjects of double jeopardy, the admission of previous convictions and the possibility of certain trials being by judge alone without a jury.
	What this Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill now before the other place have in common is that they both have a foundation in the comprehensive and weighty report from Sir Robin Auld entitled Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales, published in October last year. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated on asking Sir Robin to fulfil this mammoth task. Whatever now happens regarding the outcome of these Bills, his report will for many years stand as a major source book for the facts and issues on all these matters.
	What Sir Robin said about the management of magistrates' courts was that it was highly complex, a product of history and,
	"an increasingly tortuous legislative overlay".
	That same sort of point can be made about many aspects of our criminal justice system.
	When I was a newly called barrister in the 1950s, I spent a lot of time in magistrates' courts, usually prosecuting, and often in central London courts manned by professional stipendiary magistrates, now called district judges. Conditions have changed so much that I would not dream of drawing on my experience of magistrates' courts of 40-plus years ago as being particularly relevant today. But I will indulge in just one recollection to make a general point about judicial appointments.
	One court building I went to frequently had two stipendiary magistrates sitting in adjacent courts. In one sat a stipendiary with a well-founded reputation for toughness in his verdicts and his sentencing. The other had completely the opposite reputation—extreme leniency was his watchword. Each had sat on the Bench for some 20 years. Each day they had more or less the same kind of caseload of petty cases and, although they had completely different attitudes, they both, I thought, had been in the job rather too long and suffered from an occupational hazard that was not good for justice.
	I believe that many improvements have been made in the system since those years. Judges at all levels are given a much more varied diet of different kinds of cases and district judges—stipendiary magistrates—now have the prospect of promotion to the circuit bench. I like the flexibility mentioned by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Part 6 of the Bill which will enable judges to take a different range of cases in different courts.
	But I would like to be reassured by my noble and learned friend that there will be a degree of monitoring of judges' performances over their years of service and that they will have training opportunities to help keep their minds fresh to new legislation and fresh to new research in criminology and the penal system.
	Compared with a much more modest number in my early days at the Bar, we now have some 150 stipendiaries and there may be some advantage in mixing professional and lay magistrates in certain criminal cases. Each kind of magistrate, the professional and the lay, could well benefit from such joint sittings, in the same way as Crown Court judges and lay magistrates do when they sit together on appeals from magistrates' courts in the Crown Court. Lord Justice Auld comments that in many areas today there is an atmosphere of resentment and distrust between the lay and professional magistrates. Working together, as lawyers and others do in, for example, employment tribunals, may be part of the answer.
	The proposals in the Bill to unify court administration—I noticed, as I am sure we all did, the general approval for them of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—are sound. Following the unifying of court administration above the level of magistrates' courts in the Courts Act 1971, there has been a measure of unfinished business. Perhaps the Bill will finish the business of unification and sensible administration.
	After all, the aim of the Bill is the worthy and proper one of better service for all those who have to do with the courts. I agree with the creation of national standards and a strategic direction from the centre under the new executive agency described by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in partnership with local court administration councils. As I understand it, to use a European word as it were, subsidiarity should be an essential principle of the new dispensation, with local accountability and responsiveness to local needs and, as Lord Justice Auld said,
	"the maximum delegation of managerial responsibility and control of resources to an accountable local manager working in close liaison with the professional and lay judiciary".
	But, as has been said already in the debate, short as it has been so far, the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees, in a briefing on the Bill, argues that the Government have not kept to the intentions stated in the White Paper of July of this year, Justice for All. The Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees feels that local management boards have been relegated to being merely consultative bodies. Obviously it is difficult to get the right balance, here as elsewhere, between central strategic direction and local accountability, but clearly this is a sensitive area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, indicated earlier. Bearing in mind the fine centuries-old tradition of service to the community of lay magistrates, without which the whole British criminal justice system would either collapse or have to be very radically altered, it is most important that magistrates do not feel that the views of their representatives will count for little. Magistrates—lay magistrates in particular—should be cherished and not spurned.
	I welcome with enthusiasm the part of the Bill dealing with the enforcement of fines imposed by magistrates' courts. At present, 40 per cent of fines are never paid, and we know about the haphazard nature of fine collection and the variation in collection rates from one part of the country to another. In the words of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, this has resulted in the payment of a fine as an almost voluntary activity.
	I like the combination of sticks and carrots in the introduction of discounts for prompt payment and surcharges and other penalties for delayed payment. I listened to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in regard to car clamping and the difficulties involved in clamping cars and the problems that might arise in selling them. The Committee may wish to consider with considerable care the implications of Schedule 2 in regard to that.
	Generally, however, I commend the Bill and I hope that the House will give it an enthusiastic Second Reading.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I associate myself warmly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in regard to members of the lay magistracy. I agree that they should be cherished and that it is very important that they should not feel that the views they hold about the provisions of the Bill will not be taken into account by the Government. It is a pity that the Magistrates' Association has not yet, as far as I am aware, publicly commented on the parts of the Bill that bear upon its courts. No doubt it will very shortly, and we should all heed what it has to say with great care.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, it is true that the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees has expressed great anxieties about certain proposals, to which I shall return in a moment. However, by way of preface, it is perfectly obvious that a great deal of work has gone into the preparation of the policy of the Bill, no doubt beginning with the massive work of Sir Robin Auld.
	It seems to me that there is plenty of scope for rationalisation. I rather liked Sir Robin's point early in the report where he stated that one can scarcely talk about a criminal justice system, so great is the mish-mash of overlapping ingredients—at least I think he said that; if he did not, I do—especially at local level. He referred to,
	"a muddle of administrative complexities and responsibilities".
	As to previous and current well-intended efforts to address these problems, he stated:
	"There are pilot studies, working parties, steering groups and reviews all over the place".
	For my part, I counted 49 current government research projects and pilots in Appendix 3 to the White Paper. So although I am not by temperament a centraliser or an interferer with something that seems to be working fairly well, I readily concede that there is ample scope at least for rationalisation in the criminal justice field.
	However, I do not at present believe that the Bill's proposals for the magistrates' courts can be justified, either in pursuit of the objective of modernisation and greater efficiency, or at all. I am sorry to have to say that they constitute a quite unjustified exercise in centralisation, one which has the potential to impinge dangerously upon the independence of the lay judiciary.
	I see no justification for turning justices' clerks into civil servants and, in the process, bringing them under the control of the Lord Chancellor and his department. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lady Seccombe and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on this matter.
	What is the case for the proposed change? In a nutshell, it comes down to wide variations in performance. I do not doubt that there are such wide variations. But I should want to know rather more about the reasons why 87 days is taken to bring a case to completion in Bedfordshire, as opposed to 37 or so days in Surrey. I should want to know how many lay magistrates there are. I should want to know a good deal about local circumstances before I could know what weight to attach to that fact.
	It seems to me inevitable that there will be wide variations. Goodness knows, there are wide variations in the Crown Courts—which are much more liable to direction from central authority than are the magistrates' courts. At present, I am far from persuaded that it is right to impinge, in the way the Bill does, on the present set-up in the magistrates' courts by turning justices' clerks into civil servants.
	Under the present system, justices' clerks are appointed by the magistrates' courts committees. There is, it seems to me, ample scope for the selection of the candidates to be influenced by local considerations. I believe that to be very important—and for the following reason. The relationship between magistrates and their clerks is a very personal one. This was referred to with becoming modesty by my noble friend Lady Seccombe, who has been a magistrate for many years. One knows how intimate such a relationship needs to be if there is to be the necessary mutual trust that has been referred to.
	The justices' clerk advises his or her Bench on technical matters in terms of law and on administrative matters. But he or she does not go into the retiring room with members of the Bench. They, and they alone, carry the burden of producing the adjudication. If members of the Bench do not have confidence in their clerk, I suggest that they must have the power to get rid of the clerk, because the system will not work without such confidence. It is a local matter. The power that they have at present is by no means in practice a dead letter.
	I am worried, but not surprised, by the opposition and the grounds for it that have been published by the central council of Her Majesty's courts' committees. The council believes that the clerk will not be able to serve two masters—it is seldom that anyone is able to do so. It is particularly important in this case, because in practice and in law the clerk will serve the Lord Chancellor alone. His career will be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, or of his Permanent Secretary. A failure by his Bench to meet the target of the day will be his failure in professional terms, regardless of whatever local considerations have led his Bench to make the relevant decisions and set the relevant priorities.
	It seems to me that there is not sufficient comfort in the substitution of courts administration councils for the magistrates' courts committees. As has been powerfully pointed out, they are no more than consultative. They will not appoint the clerks. They will have no executive authority whatever. They will advise the new board, higher up in this administrative or bureaucratic change. So there is no answer to the point that has been made several times already—and alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie— drawing upon the statement on page 148 of the White Paper:
	"The aim of the new agency"—
	the criminal justice board—
	"will be to enable management decisions to be taken locally by community focused local management boards, but within a strong national framework"—
	and so on. I do not believe that that is a sufficient answer to the creation of the new board at local level; namely, the criminal justice board. It is certainly not a sufficient substitute for the power of the Bench itself to appoint its clerk.
	It gets worse. The Bill empowers the Lord Chancellor, by order, to confer some judicial powers on justices' clerks—powers which could be exercised by a single justice sitting alone. It is true that they have marginal powers of that character at present. The Bill enables the Lord Chancellor to enlarge those powers. This has set alarm bells ringing among the lay magistracy—and I believe that they ought to ring in this House. I do not believe that it is at all safe that these extended powers should be available to servants of the executive.
	As a consequence of the Bill, lay local decision-making input into the location of courts, the appointment of staff, the priorities of expenditure and accountability for performance will be removed altogether. It is pointed out in a statement placed in the Library that there is to be a lay magistrate on the local criminal justice board. But, as has been stated from the Front Bench, that does not appear in the Bill. I do not know how the Lord Chancellor reckons that he will, through his staff, improve upon the present performance of the magistrates' courts' committees.
	What went wrong between the point at which the part of the White Paper that I have cited was written and the formulation of the Bill? It is hard to think of a reason other than a rush of centralising blood to the head. There will be no community-focused local management board. The one that we have already will have had its throat cut. This approach to getting the criminal justice system "right at the start", to quote from the White Paper, seems to me rather erratic.
	A tribute to the lay magistracy might not have come amiss in the Lord Chancellor's speech. There is time for such a tribute to come from the Front Bench opposite at the end of this debate.
	It will be helpful to learn publicly what the reaction from the Magistrates' Association will be. It has a long history of constructive participation in the formulation of policies which are designed to modernise and make more efficient the administration and jurisdictions that it has historically performed. It is an historic office, but it is ever vigorous and ever important.
	I noted that in the list of approving bodies read out by the Lord Chancellor, the Magistrates' Association did not feature; nor did the Justices' Clerks' Society—unless I missed any mention of them. It is true that the Association of Justices' Chief Executives featured in the list; but that is a very different kettle of fish, and not one that altogether inspires confidence in respect of the anxieties that I have expressed.
	The magistrates represent a body of the judiciary which is unique to this country, or at least to a small part of the common law world. They need to be cherished. They provide a staunch check against abuse of executive power at local level. They also reinforce public confidence in the operation of the law at levels that are especially important to local communities. I put it no higher than to say that they may well need to have the continued provision of an exceptional jurisdiction and an exceptional mode of administration.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, further to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, one of the reasons why lay justices have a low profile in England and Wales is that we are becoming evermore metropolitanised and centralised in what we do and in how the nation is governed. Lay justices are the Cinderellas of the justice system. I applaud what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart said about the lay justices.
	The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that he was a practitioner in stipendiary courts at the beginning of his legal career. I was a practitioner in lay justice courts and sometimes sat as a temporary clerk to justices. I shall comment largely on the position of lay justices under this Bill in tribute to my late father, who died in May. He spent 50 years as an advocate in lay justice courts and more than 30 years as a part-time clerk. I was reared in the law in the shadow of that remarkable institution.
	Given our deep concern about the malaise of democracy and participation in this country, with predictable results, we should recollect that lay justices are still deeply embedded in the culture and history of our country. Those 30,000 men and women, of all sorts and conditions, are at the heart of the justice system. Lay justices dispose of over 93 per cent of all criminal cases. The only direct experience that the majority of our fellow countrymen will have of the law will be a visit to a magistrates' court, whether as accused, applicant, witness, friend or professional.
	Benches of magistrates were almost wholly self-governing until the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, pursuant to which they have functioned within magistrates' courts committees, which are established for each administrative county and certain non-county boroughs. In the past decade, the number of magistrates' courts committees has been reduced from more than 100 to 42. Alongside that, there has been a steady amalgamation of Benches and petty sessional divisions. Chief executives of MCCs, many without any legal experience or background, have been appointed under the 1999 Act. Meanwhile, the closure of local courts has continued apace. Last year, I instigated a debate in this House on that subject, which provoked an all-but-unanimous condemnation of the impact on local justice and local people of what is still happening. Around 400 magistrates' courts remain.
	The Bill continues down the same one-eyed track that this Government and their predecessors pursued vis-à-vis court closures by enshrining the phrase "efficient and effective", as if those words comprised a clear and comprehensive statement of what is needed for local justice. That verbal formula is, no doubt, behind the Government's pretending to weigh the pros and cons of closures of tens, and indeed hundreds, of magistrates' courts without including in the costs-savings balance the expense to the public, the police, magistrates and advocates of getting to and from distant courthouses.
	One of the amendments that I will table at the next stage will seek to import into Clause 1 the much broader set of yardsticks employed by the Lord Chancellor in his most recent departmental report; namely, to,
	"enable criminal justice to be dispensed fairly, effectively and without undue delay, promoting confidence in the rule of law".
	I suspect that, if that is the keystone of this legislation, some of the unnecessary damage that will be done to the lay justice system and the magistrates' courts committees will be avoided.
	Yet, the Access to Justice Act 1999 reforms have scarcely bedded down. As Sir Robin Auld said, they are still in transition. As is the fashion, the Bill will uproot them long before their success can be properly assessed, thus throwing the system into further chaos and demoralisation. The Civil Service and politicians do not consider that factor enough.
	Last week, a delegation of chairpersons of magistrates' Benches came to see me. They made it plain in the most powerful terms that they and their colleagues view the proposed changes to court organisation as likely, if not certain, to result in further resignations of some of their best JPs and the deterrence of some of their best potential recruits. They see the changes as likely to cause the further distancing of justice from those over whom it is exercised, and that they will lead to greater inefficiency and ineffectiveness of justice in their courts.
	How often have we been promised radical improvements in administration and efficiency in affairs of state—health, education, transport, you name it—only to end up with increased lines of communication, loss of local input, demoralisation, additional bureaucracy and diluted citizen ownership. The last factor, to which the Lord Chief Justice referred earlier, is crucial.
	As the Suffolk Magistrates' Court Committee said in its most recent report,
	"the Committee is conscious of the effect that low esteem can have upon staff morale and, to a degree, the Auld review may also be less conducive to a "feel good" factor amongst staff. There are some signs that this is beginning to translate itself into a difficulty in retaining staff".
	I suggest that that is typical. In fact, over one-fifth of the committee's staff resigned last year, along with over 10 per cent of justices of the peace. Yet, I suspect, Suffolk is better than most.
	Another example, only too well known by the outdoor staff of my London firm of solicitors, is the impact of the forced merger of the Westminster and Bloomsbury County Courts five years ago to form the Central London Court. That has led to a catastrophic drop in efficiency and effectiveness. As I was told, you never see the same staff twice, they all seem to be young and experienced, and, too often, the result is poor service.
	My noble friend Lord Goodhart, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke effectively about the impact of the proposals to abolish magistrates' courts committees and replace them by court administration councils—or "CACs", as they will undoubtedly be known, giving a new meaning to the expression "cack-handed". The problem is that Clause 4 leaves it entirely up to the Lord Chancellor to decide how many CACs there will be. One confident prediction is that there will be a mere 10, coinciding with regional administrations. What hope is there, then, for local justice?
	Whereas magistrates' courts committees make decisions on where their courts will be, who shall be the chief executive, the appointment of justices' clerks and other staff, the terms of those appointments and where justices' clerks will sit, CACs will be responsible only for making recommendations in all those fields. They will have no decisive powers. I am informed that they were not called court management councils precisely because they will have no management powers.
	Whereas magistrates' courts committees comprise 12 justices of the peace practising in the area concerned, a CAC will have only one justice of the peace. If we really want justices who know their patch, know what is needed, know what resources there are and how best to deploy them, with a sense of "owning" and running their own courts, and having responsibility for them, it will scarcely be achieved by replacing a committee comprised of 12 serving magistrates by a council comprising only one. It is not merely that the courts committees are comprised of serving magistrates; they are selected by a panel, to which representatives of every Bench in the area are elected. We have in place an extremely effective, democratic, accountable procedure to ensure that magistrates' courts committees are run effectively by those responsible for the courts. All that will go. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the new proposals will keep the courts,
	"in touch with the communities they serve".
	He also said that they will not be "a centralising measure", that they will be better responsive to local needs and that they represent "decentralised management". Either the noble and learned Lord is reading a different Bill or I have to say that I disagree with him totally and absolutely, and so do others of your Lordships.
	Justices of the peace will in future not serve as part of distinct petty sessional divisions—which are to be abolished—and will be commissioned on a countrywide basis, but will serve in what are poetically to be known as "local justice areas", to one or more of which the Lord Chancellor will assign them. I am not sure where local Benches sit in this reorganisation. If the local Benches are to go, that will be a retrograde step of the first order, because the morale, cohesion and self-knowledge of Benches is a critical part of the effectiveness of lay justice. I am sure that I do not need to elaborate on the effects to local justice of all this. That has been made clear enough already.
	Court service circular 199, emanating from the Lord Chancellor's Department, issued on 29th of last month, said:
	"the national jurisdiction means that a summary offence can be treated in the same way as an indictable offence and will allow proceedings to be brought anywhere in England and Wales, rather than in the local justice area where the offence was committed. This will have the effect of reducing delay by allowing bulk processing of cases"—
	that is the key phrase—
	"and will allow specialist courts within an area to hear certain types of cases".
	JPs, who are after all volunteers, will swiftly tire of a diet of, as the circular puts it, "bulk processing of cases". Many have told me so and it is pretty obvious. Unless good justices of the peace have a good cross-section of cases, including some of the most difficult in terms of law, fact and judgment, they will simply walk away, as many of them have already done because of workload, court closures and the like. Apart from that, centralising a certain type of case in a certain court inevitably means even greater distances for all those involved to travel, with all the other consequences already touched on.
	The Government were partly frustrated by this House in their comparable attempts to centralise control of county probation committees and county police authorities. This is an even more important battle to win for the sake of justice. If it is true, as I think it is, that this country is distinguished by a level of probity and respect for law and order among the vast majority of its citizens—despite the lamentable crime statistics that we hear so much of—those characteristics of Britain have a great deal to do with the role of justices of the peace at the heart of communities up and down the land since the 14th century. Although one can exaggerate and dramatise the impact of reorganisations such as that proposed, I strongly believe that for the magistrates' courts committees to be replaced by recommendatory councils would be an own goal and a self-destructive move of the first order.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, when I first received a print of the Bill, I started, as one would, with Clause 1. I was puzzled as to why it should set out this extensive duty on the Lord Chancellor. Could it be an aide memoire in case he had forgotten? Could it be a coded "Trespassers will be prosecuted" notice sent to the Home Secretary? I really did not know, but as I read further I came to the conclusion that it was an attempted justification for the enormous centralisation to which the Bill gives effect.
	There is of course a widespread requirement for consultation, but if I were a Minister I do not think that a requirement to consult would blow me much off course. It would, of course, delay, but that is about all. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be different; he may be swayed by the results of consultation.
	I looked to see whether anywhere the Bill says that anyone has to concur. In paragraph 281 of the Explanatory Notes I found a power in relation to Northern Ireland that requires the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. I then looked at the Bill. Unfortunately, it was a typographical error—it is, in fact, consultation again.
	When I was in office, I was one of those who had to concur in the fees. Even in 1992, when I left, there were considerable anxieties among my brethren, which I shared, about the extent to which increases in fees would close access to justice. That has been highlighted recently in statements by one of my successors. I well understand the four heads of division saying that they no longer wish to accept responsibility for the fees being charged. But it would be difficult for them to oppose. The issue relates to the provision of the sinews or resources necessary to run the system.
	I noticed with surprise the comment by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that, in working out the costs of accommodation, a notional capital cost is now put on the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. I did not know anything about that. Of course, there are heavy maintenance costs as it is a listed building and a very extensive one. However, it seems odd to put a capital cost on it because, as many of your Lordships will know, it cost not a penny piece to build. The sensible course was taken of having a look at the enormous sums in the court funds that were never going to be claimed. It was then provided by statute that that money could be taken to build the courts, provided there was an indemnity that would provide payment for anybody who turned up to claim it. I commend to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the thought that we might do that again. It is over 100 years since it was done. That might build a new commercial court.
	Then there were the civil procedure rules. I was a member of that committee for a long time. Under the 1981 Act, the Lord Chancellor and at least four members of the committee had to concur. In other words, there was a right of veto on both sides. That was replaced under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 by a requirement for eight members of the committee to agree, giving the Lord Chancellor a veto—the right to approve or disapprove.
	Clause 80 of this Bill allows the Lord Chancellor to "allow, disallow or alter" the rules. Paragraph 195 of the Explanatory Notes accurately comments on that, but it requires careful reading before anybody realises what the facts are. It says this is not a new power and goes on to talk about the county court rules. It is not a new power in relation to county court rules, but it certainly is a new power in relation to supreme court rules. So much for that.
	I turn to appointments of staff. Justices' clerks are to be appointed under the provisions of subsection (1) of Clause 2. They are defined under Clause 22. As was pointed out, they are to be civil servants. They are to have powers to do anything that a single justice of the peace can do. Under Clause 24 they are to be independent in the sense that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot require them to do anything in particular. I am reminded forcibly of the apocryphal story of the managing director who summoned the office boy and said, "Well, Brian, you really must comb your hair properly and have clean fingernails. I am not, of course, giving you an order, I am just making a suggestion. But I do hope that you will remember who is making the suggestion". I cannot help thinking that such a relationship might exist between some justices' clerks and the department.
	Clause 30 gives justices' clerks an indemnity if they are sued. That is quite right, but subsection (5) of Clause 30 leaves it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to decide whether they should have an indemnity. I accept that there are rules and approaches which no doubt would fetter his discretion but I consider that provision rather unfortunate.
	The provision of fines officers is a welcome development. Any system of fines where recovery is problematical is bound to lack all credibility. It is the experience of all citizens advice bureaux that large sections of the population are quite incapable of managing their financial affairs. That can lead to those who are fined getting into genuine difficulties. They need help to get them out of those difficulties rather than a penal sanction. There are, of course, a few who just will not pay. I accept that sanctions must be imposed on those people, but I have slight doubts about paragraph 9 of the second schedule which provides that there shall be an uplift. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that it would be imposed by the court. That may be the case, but paragraph 9 reads differently. Paragraph 9(2) states:
	"An increase is imposed on the fine which is the subject of the order".
	Paragraph 9(3) states:
	"The amount of the increase is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations but must not be greater than 50% of the fine".
	Paragraph 9(4)—the key provision—states:
	"The increase is given effect by treating it as part of the fine imposed on P on his conviction".
	So it is a deeming clause. Is that really a provision that either represents what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said or that would pass scrutiny under the Human Rights Act? For my part I have doubts.
	I wish to say a few words about administrative councils. I can quite understand why they are being introduced, albeit I do not altogether approve of the form in which they are being introduced. But they involve the abolition of the magistrates' courts committees. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the magistrates' courts committees serve a very important localising function. But if they are to go, instead of having just one lay justice on the new body, could we not have several? Even more importantly, ought they not to be nominated or elected by the magistrates and not appointed from on high? I also note—I am not sure how this works—that under Clause 5 the councils' recommendations are limited to matters specifically relevant to their own area. But there may be matters which relate across the board and which affect them. I certainly hope that they will be able to make recommendations on those matters.
	The supplementary list should never be abolished. Many people up and down the country have given years of voluntary service. It is right that that should be recognised by their being allowed to put the letters "JP" after their name even if they have passed the point at which they are able actively to adjudicate. That may be due to age or merely due to the fact that they have adjudicated for a quarter of a century and they consider enough is enough.
	I turn to damages. I wholeheartedly welcome the provision with regard to structured settlements. My only qualification is that it would be a good idea if the media were taught that a structured settlement does not necessarily involve the millions of pounds that they usually attribute to such settlements. In most cases the amount involved is much less. Only in a worst case scenario, as it were, would the costs run to the sort of figures that the media mention. That causes litigants to think in terms of unrealistic figures for settlements.
	I return for a moment to fines officers. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned clamping and appeared to regard the registration of a keeper as having something to do with ownership. It has nothing whatever to do with ownership. I am bound to say that if I was threatened with a fine, or even if I received a summons from a magistrates' court, I would give careful consideration to who ought to be the keeper of my motor vehicle. I am reminded again of an apocryphal story concerning King George V who asked one of his Ministers what was the state of the economy, to which the answer was, "Well, your Majesty, if I were you, I would put the colonies in the wife's name". I should have thought that that would certainly be the reaction of anyone whose vehicle was threatened with being clamped.
	Subsection (1) of Clause 58 concerns nomenclature in the Court of Appeal. The justification for the proposed changes is said to be that the term "Lord Justice" is gender indicative. I do not agree for one moment. A large number of offices contain the word "Lord" none of which, so far as I know, has ever been treated as gender indicative. There is, for starters, the First Lord of the Treasury. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, occupied that office for a long time. I do not believe that she ever considered that her femininity was called into question. There is—this is perhaps closer to home—the Lord President of the Council. There are perhaps—if not, there will be—female Lords Lieutenant. There are Lord Mayors, for example, the Lord Mayor of Westminster and the Lord Mayor of the City of London. Both those offices have been occupied by women who have been called Lord Mayor. There must be many other examples.
	I was so puzzled by that provision that I had a look at my own patent. I did not want to bring it to the House as it has a heavy seal, I took a photocopy. Apart from referring to me as,
	"Our trusty and well beloved"
	which I appreciate, it continues,
	"Sir John Francis Donaldson Knight, one of the justices of our High Court of Justice".
	The style relates to the office. The document continues, having said "do give and grant",
	"the Office of one of our Lords Justices of Appeal".
	It is an office. It has nothing to do with what one calls oneself. Section 4 of the 1991 Act says that the puisne judges of the High Court should be styled "justices of the High Court".
	We all know that, long even before there were women judges of the High Court, judges were universally called Mr Justice so-and-so. It was quite logical that when women High Court justices were appointed they should call themselves Mrs Justice. I say "logical", but of course none of the Mr Justices was a Mister, because they were all Knights, and none of the Mrs Justices was a Mrs because they were all Dames. Subject to that, however, it was perfectly logical and it did not require any statutory approval.
	If there is a sensitivity, as there is, although I believe it to be misguided, among the lady members of the Court of Appeal about the title of "Lord Justice", the obvious answer is to modify the Bill to provide that the word "Lord" shall be removed from the style or description of the office. If the office were known as "Justice of Appeal", the present incumbents would be free to do what their puisne brethren and sisterhood have done, which is to put some indication on the front of their title as to which gender they subscribe. In that way, life will be able to go on as it is at the moment.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I am interested in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. However, I do not believe that he can do anything to prevent the Bar from referring to High Court judges, Lords of Appeal and others in those high judicial positions as "my Lord".

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, there is no reason why the Bar should do that. In this House, when I rise to my feet I say "my Lords", and I hope that none of the lady Members present is in any way offended. It is an accepted collective term. I criticise my erstwhile brethren for having got their underwear in a twist on this question, so much so that, as one legal periodical reports, one member of the court volunteered to be a male judge for a day to make matters easier. The answer is that the court as a whole should be addressed as "my Lords", and individual members as "my Lady" or "my Lord" as the case may be. That would not be a problem.
	I have even greater difficulties with Clause 59, which allows the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to run through the whole gamut of judicial offices to give effect to a policy of political correctness. I was delighted to see that he did not contemplate turning the office of Master of the Rolls into Mistress of the Rolls. I hope that he would not even consider making that an alternative, so that it could be Master or Mistress as the case might be. I remind him that, although his office is slightly older than my erstwhile office, the first Master of the Rolls saw the light of day in 1297. The title should not be altered today.
	Finally, I very much regret that the Bill will be in Committee when I am briefly out of the country and trying to warm up. I shall not be able to take part in it, but I hope that one or two of my remarks will ring a bell with some of your Lordships. I shall certainly be back for the Report stage.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, the Bill is about justice, and the judgment to be made upon it will be whether it strengthens the confidence of our people in the delivery of justice in our country.
	As noble Lords have said, there are serious inconsistencies. It cannot be right that a person living in Cambridgeshire is more than twice as likely to avoid paying a fine as someone from West Yorkshire. Surely, if the courts in Yorkshire can get the money in, it must be possible to get it in anywhere in our country.
	In the early 1990s, I served as a member of the South Yorkshire Probation Committee. I remember our discussion of and response to the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Do noble Lords remember those heady days when there were only 45,000 people in our prisons? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has reminded us today that the crime figures are down, but the prison population has risen to 72,000. That ought to be the headline.
	The 1991 Act made us think about the philosophy and practice of justice with a view to reducing our prison populations. There are four prisons in the diocese of Guildford, two of which have recently been converted into women's prisons. Many lay people go into those prisons to work with families and children, in parenting courses and other educational activities. They come out feeling bewildered as to why so many people are in those institutions. We must tackle that matter.
	The 1991 Act was part of a coherent strategy to reduce the prison population. It caught our imagination at the time, although there were serious problems about the way in which it applied fines. It is good to see this Bill addressing the vacuum that followed its demise.
	For there to be justice, two things have to happen. First, sentences must be enforced. The public needs to be able to feel confident that, when a court imposes a fine, it will be collected. Justice collapses if the message gets round that people can joyride in a car, destroy it, appear in court and be sentenced to a fine but never pay a penny of it. The outcome is that some of the most disadvantaged communities in our country suffer a loss of justice; the poor and vulnerable communities suffer as a consequence of our failure to administer justice. The provisions of the Bill offer some remedy to those experiences.
	I am interested by the Bill's proposal to pilot some ways in which to collect fines. Speaking from these Benches, I have to say that money can corrupt even systems for collection of fines. I shall be interested to hear how we will set up simple, transparent and fair systems after the experience of the Child Support Agency, which was excellent in principle, wonderfully founded in aim and absolutely fell apart in the forest of bureaucratic practice.
	The overriding experience that fines will be collected will increase confidence in fines and reduce pressures in our prisons. There must be a multitude of ways in which that can be enforced, and no doubt we shall assist the Lord Chancellor in working on the detail of the Bill as it goes through its stages.
	The second principle is to have consistency in practice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has pointed out that the God-fearing and law-abiding citizens of Surrey wait only seven days to appear in court while the wicked of Bedfordshire have to wait 86 days. That is not good news for the administration of justice. Although it is not easy, we must balance the desire for local diversity with a need for consistency in the administration of justice. Those who appear in our courts have an overriding right to justice to the highest levels applicable.
	The proposals encourage us to think towards greater coherence and flexibility. Other parts of the world, such as New Zealand and Australia, have succeeded in many measures and kept their prison populations down to a minimum.
	The shadow of Dickens' father being flung into Marshalsea prison for non-payment of debt and fines has haunted English justice for far too long. It is time to rehabilitate fines so that fewer people are sent to prison; that is what the 1991 Act tried to do. I welcome the Bill and hope that the House will give it the support that it deserves.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, this is a first-class Bill and I very much welcome its broad thrust. It is, dare I say, a Bill for modernisation; that word has a certain ring about it these days. However, I want to touch on a few aspects that bear on the effective management of the new system. Obviously, effective management is vital for the new system because it is stated to be one of the major parts of its rationale.
	As the Lord Chief Justice pointed out in his role as shop steward for the judiciary, issues are raised about co-ordination in the system and the lack of resources and satisfactory financial arrangements in relation to, for example, accommodation. I trust that they will be referred to more authoritatively later.
	The Bill represents a major change, although that may not appear on the face of it to be the case. One advantage is that it will avoid the amount of poaching that currently occurs between one or other of the 42 magistrates' courts committee areas. Someone in one of those areas, not having a framework system, may think that they would like to have a clerk from another area in their system. That is one of the downsides of the much-vaunted principle of decentralisation.
	It would be counter-productive if both opposition parties, as they have hinted, sought the rather paradoxical result of duplicating the new structure and the new agency by arguing that local management committees should also have responsibilities which, if it means anything, means in relation to the employment of staff. That would surely increase confusion rather than provide the clarity which is the main thrust of the Bill. However, there is local accountability where it matters to the citizen. That distinction has not been brought out; quite the opposite. I shall be corrected if I am wrong but there is currently no real system of accountability for MCCs, certainly not in an explicit sense, as is proposed—this is the new proposal—in relation to CACs.
	The question of the collection of fines has been touched on by almost every noble Lord. That may have been highlighted as a problem by discussion in the press. The conclusion that one should reach is perhaps the opposite to that reached by many noble Lords. In effect, noble Lords have been saying—I do not know whether they were clear that this is what they were saying—that the more we "contract out" the collection of fines, by some miraculous wave of a magic wand a greater proportion of fines will be collected. There has been a trend towards what I should call more contracting out of the collection of fines. But it has not had that result. Bailiffs often go in for cherry-picking and establish which fine is the most economical to collect. I may be echoing the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I put it in my own terms: that adds up to the least cost to, or profit maximisation for, those who do the collecting. I do not believe that we are going down that road. I do no more than mention the important point about citizens advice bureaux made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
	It is hard for most of us to follow the Bill on the question of contracting out. I point out where the Bill alludes to it. I am told that the coded language in Clause 2(4) allows for more contracting out. If I have got that right, staff will ask whether that repeals the provisions of the Act—I believe, the 1971 Act—that explicitly provides that any proposal to contract out (I stress that we are talking about the justice system, which is, all people agree, innately a public good and a public service) must first be examined by the four senior judges and both Houses of Parliament. Are we repealing those provisions? Perhaps I can seek an assurance from my noble friend that that is not the case. I hope that I am wrong in this regard.
	Finally, I turn to the protection of employees' rights in the transfer of employment. As I understand it, the 10,000 employees of magistrates' courts will in effect be merged with the 11,000 relevant employees of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the new structure or agency—whatever we call it. On the face of it, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply and, for the purpose of Schedule 1, the employing magistrates' court committee or local authority will be treated as a transferor and the Lord Chancellor will then be treated as the transferee. That is my understanding. I should be grateful if my noble friend will confirm whether that is correct.
	Paragraph 9(1) in Schedule 1 states:
	"The Lord Chancellor may make a scheme".
	I am rather puzzled by that language because it suggests that the Lord Chancellor may not make a scheme. Does that leave open the interpretation that TUPE need not apply? I cannot understand how legally that could be the case. If that is not the intention, perhaps that ambiguity needs to be removed at a later stage.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I had not expected to have to speak in this debate because, in the summer, my contacts on the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees were satisfied with the phrase that appeared in the White Paper in July and which has already been quoted. The phrase is:
	"The aim of the new agency will be to enable management decisions to be taken locally by community focused local management boards".
	It would be interesting to know what happened between the printing and publication of that statement and the printing and publication of the Bill.
	I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope that he will forgive me, and be unsurprised, if I do not view the Bill through quite the same utopian spectacles.
	The Lord Chancellor said, among other things, that the new structure facilitates rather than hinders progress; but I find it inconceivable that he should bring forward a Bill that would do anything else. I interpreted his comment as meaning not only that the Bill is good—one would expect the Government to produce something better; I should expect him to make that argument—but that the existing structure hinders progress. If that is so, the comment seems at the very least to demean the immense work done by many voluntary magistrates across the country who do not have the opportunity to bring before Parliament a Bill to get things done. They have to work with restrictive budgets and difficult local authorities and proceed by agreement. They are in a much more difficult situation.
	The Lord Chancellor says that the new executive agency will not be a "take-over" but build on strength and decentralised management. That is all very fine. However, what was the original concept of executive agencies? In his 1988 report, Sir Robin Ibbs suggested that the agencies' focus could be "downward and outwards". The report said that,
	"an agency was defined as a discrete area of work with a single named individual—a chief executive—in charge, with personal responsibility to the Minister for the day to day management",
	and that the,
	"principle was to be that agencies must be left as free as possible to manage within this framework".
	The team responsible for the July 2002 review entitled Better Government Services found that,
	"some agencies have become disconnected from their departments",
	which brought us back to centralised working.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the new proposals would widen the input from the local community. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, said that magistrates' courts committees are not accountable to anyone. However, for the 14 or 15 years in which I served on Essex County Council, the magistrates' courts had to report their budget to me. I had to take that budget to pieces and put it together again. If I had not done so, I would have had subsequently to take it before a county council of 98 members who owned and accounted for every penny of that budget. The county council's budget was made up of so many boxes of matches, so that the public ownership by the community was direct and immediate.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The new body's committee dealing with accountability will have two representatives of the local community and an additional representative and so on. I am sure that the noble Lord has read the passage dealing with those arrangements; I can cite it if necessary. Does he agree that there is no parallel for that representative structure in the current arrangements in councils?

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. To me, however, accountability has always gone with the control of money. The control of money in the local administrative boards will be non-existent; at best, they are consultative and can make recommendations. The control of money will come from the centre. However devolved downwards the administration may be, those who know the source of funding will look to the hand that feeds them for direction on what they should do. That is one of the great realities of life.
	One thing I have learned in long experience as a farmer is that there is not much point in tilling the same soil too many times as the soil will only become unproductive. The "soil" in relation to magistrates has already been well tilled today by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Seccombe, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, the noble Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and others. I shall therefore not continue except to make one observation. We are perhaps fortunate that 1984 is behind us. Nevertheless, the juggernaut postulated for 1984 seems to be growing ever closer.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, I entirely agree that the courts' administrative provision and arrangements—from the High Court to the magistrates' courts—should come under one umbrella, but only if adequate provision is made for the extremely important local dimension in relation to magistrates' courts, Crown Courts, county courts and so on. In all the briefing papers I received on this matter, the one point that really registered was in a parliamentary briefing paper from the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. One of its five criticisms of the Bill was that the proposal would make it easier for the Lord Chancellor to close courts irrespective of the needs of local justice and the concerns of the local community. That is the issue that I shall address.
	I live in a very sparsely populated part of the country, in mid-Wales, where we are in the process of having to close almost all the courts regardless of whether they provide for the High Court, the Crown Court or the magistrates' court. Frequently, all courts share the same facilities because there has been no investment in them for many years. Although the Lord Chancellor is in the Chamber, the shadow of another Chancellor—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—hangs over this debate.
	The Lord Chancellor is taking great powers in the Bill. I should like briefly to explore how those powers will be exercised and interpreted in relation to my own area. The precursor of an executive agency already exists in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and that agency has already intervened quite considerably in my own area. I seek the Lord Chancellor's guidance and explanation of how the powers will be interpreted and how they are intended to be used.
	I am holding a document entitled Gwent and Dyfed Powys Courts Scheme, published in October 2002. It is subtitled, "Executive Summary Outline Business Case for a Public Private Partnership", and covers courts in Gwent, in south-east Wales; in Powys, my own area in central Wales, and in Dyfed in south-west Wales. The scheme was undoubtedly put together under pressure from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I have been consulting on it. Under the heading "The Outline Business Case—Key Facts", the scheme states:
	"There is no capital money available within the required time frame. The funding route that has been identified for this project is PPP. The PPP Outline Business Case demonstrates real Value for Money based on a 25 year contract".
	It continues:
	"The PPP solution can be delivered by 2006. For the first time in England and Wales there will be a purpose built single Courts estate".
	I quote that because in the scheme's financial provisions—for which the Lord Chancellor's Department has been pressing—there is mention of a contribution from the Welsh Assembly government funding, through the Revenue Support Grant, of £6.3 million. That is not part of the devolution arrangements. Has the Lord Chancellor had discussions with the Welsh Assembly on that matter? Is it being asked to contribute money to a scheme for providing courts?
	Later on, under the heading "The Regional Dimension", the paper states:
	"The exact method of funding from LCD still has to be finalised including the arrangements and involvement of the Welsh Assembly Government. The Assembly need to be part of the decision making process".
	I know that the Lord Chancellor has not had notice that I was going to raise this point, but that illustrates the fact that in my area—I just deal with Powys—all the courts will have to be closed. They do not satisfy modern requirements. Therefore, new provision must be made. We are a rural, but not rich, area. How will that be funded? We are pressed by the Lord Chancellor's Department to go down the PPP course. That is how this document has come into being. What happened is that Gwent—which is a very different and much more populous area—had already, again in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Department, instructed project managers, legal, financial and technical advisers to provide such a scheme. Then Powys and Dyfed, which are linked for magisterial purposes, piggy-backed on to the Gwent scheme at the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
	Therefore, we have this courts scheme document. It gives an indication of how the Lord Chancellor's Department is likely to act if the general thrust of the Bill is passed. I said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's shadow is over the Bill. Is he insisting that there should be private partnership arrangements? The failure of the Lord Chancellor's Department in that event is the failure of the Lord Chancellor to persuade his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to provide the money that is so badly needed to provide us with decent courts in country areas such as my own.
	My fear is—and it is a fear expressed by many people in my part of the world—that we shall have to close the courts and that no proper provision will be made, because I cannot see that a private partnership will be enticed into this scheme. This paper is the preparation for it, but the money has not been provided. Is this scheme an indication of the kind of situation that will arise unless suitable safeguards are made during the passage of the Bill through the House? I am really asking the Lord Chancellor to explain his view and his interpretation of the Bill. Was there discussion with the Welsh Assembly—and with the Secretary of State for Wales, for example—before the Bill was introduced? How does he intend to interpret his powers under the Bill?

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I appreciate that flattery will get me nowhere, in particular with this Lord Chancellor. But I should like to express my gratitude for the great deal of preparatory work done in providing the explanatory material, which I found very time-consuming, but, on the other hand, very helpful.
	At the outset perhaps I may indicate my support for the reform of the courts system with the goal of creating a more unified structure able to serve court users and the public. That is also the view of the Bar Council, to which I am indebted for some of the material that I shall place before your Lordships.
	I have heard in the past that the Lord Chancellor's Department manages to maintain its stranglehold on the administration of justice by providing the Lord Chancellor with such an excess of work that it can tie him down on matters that may be of some importance while it gets on, behind his back, with achieving whatever it has in mind. That was perhaps particularly indicated by the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was totally unaware that behind his back an enormous amount of work was going on preparatory to the production of the Green Papers of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is of course a workaholic. It would be difficult to tie him down in particular. The same no doubt applies to his shadow, for whom I have particular affection. But, on the other hand, neither is immortal and politics being what it is they will have successors in the near future, or further in the future. Therefore, I am concerned at the extent to which matters are left entirely to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, which in many ways means the Lord Chancellor's Department, for which I do not have quite the respect that perhaps I should have.
	I shall refer to one or two clauses, but will try to avoid repetition. As to Clauses 4 and 5, we believe that it is a good idea to have area court administration councils, providing they have power to act. They should be required to publish annual reports, or the Lord Chancellor should publish them along with his own, as provided for in Clause 1(4).
	Clause 4(5) speaks of guidance to the councils from the Lord Chancellor about the way the councils "discharge their functions". Where are those functions defined? Clause 4(5) would suggest that that is all to be set out in a statutory instrument. That is objectionable. Why not define those functions on the face of the Bill? They are certainly germane to the Bill.
	With regard to justices of the peace, a great deal has been said in critical observations. I shall not repeat them, but I substantially agree with them. In relation to Clause 8, which concerns local justice areas, I suggest that the areas under Clause 8(2) be defined now. Clause 8(4) allows the Lord Chancellor to do as he pleases at a later stage.
	Clause 23, which deals with functions, is objectionable in one respect. Why cannot the Lord Chancellor define on the face of the Bill what functions currently done by JPs he wants to be done by clerks in the future? This provision, as it now stands, would allow for civil-servant-driven justice and is undesirable.
	Clause 25 deals with places, dates and times of sittings. I wish to ensure that under Clause 25(1) the courts are locally accessible by all communities in England and Wales. The Bill should provide for that as a statutory objective.
	Clause 29 concerns costs in legal proceedings. I would query whether it is right that a person who brings successful proceedings against a JP for acting outside his jurisdiction cannot recover his costs. Clause 29(4) allows the court to order the Lord Chancellor to pay. That is appropriate, but Clause 29(5) allows the Lord Chancellor to define when he will or will not pay costs. That suggests that he is acting as a judge in his own cause. That measure should be removed from the Bill and substituted by something more equitable.
	Clause 31 deals with fines officers. It gives the Lord Chancellor the power to activate Schedule 2 and, indeed, to modify it. In Schedule 2 a civil servant—that is, the fines officer—may increase or decrease the fine. In paragraph 17 there is a power but not a duty to refer collection orders to the magistrates' court. Is the Lord Chancellor prepared to give an assurance that the "magistrates' court" referred to in paragraph 16(2) will not be only a magistrate's clerk? In paragraph 23, which does not properly define a "magistrates' court" as one presided over by JPs or a district judge, it could mean a justice's clerk. Clause 32(2) bears that out.
	The next matter to which I want to refer is Clause 69, which provides for the Lord Chancellor, a government Minister, to involve himself in substantive law where the state will always be a party. Does that not run the risk of coming into conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights?
	Clause 73 deals with family procedure rules and practice directions. It gives the Lord Chancellor power to rewrite Clause 72(2), which concerns who sits on the family procedure rule committee, and, indeed, the rest of Clause 72, without coming back to Parliament. It provides the Lord Chancellor with a blank cheque and is clearly undesirable.
	In Clause 79, which concerns the civil procedure rules, the same change is proposed as in Clause 73, and that should be opposed. The Lord Chancellor cannot be given the power to act as he pleases. The rules have a major impact upon the practice and cost of litigation. It is thought that those who decide what the rules are should be defined in primary legislation.
	I turn to Clause 87, which deals with the subject of fees. This is what we have often referred to as making provision for the cream for the office cat to be paid for by the unfortunate litigant. It is obviously having a thoroughly undesirable effect on litigation. The amount of litigation in county courts is decreasing and that is due not only to the very wise provisions made by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf but also to the prohibitive cost of proceedings. There is an absence of proper financing by the Government, and the result is a degree of incompetence that, in some quarters, is quite frightening.
	Reference has been made to the Central London County Court. One cannot make contact with that court by telephone—it is impossible, and I speak with first-hand knowledge. I found myself a defendant in that court. I counter-claimed, which I am happy to tell your Lordships had a satisfactory conclusion. But I had to go physically to the central court to get the case transferred to Wandsworth in order to make contact with a court in circumstances that enabled the litigation to go forward.
	The quality of clerks is going down because the job is not satisfying. That quality is being maintained in the country because of country connections and because many clerks in the country enjoy that job in their area. But the same is not happening in London. In many ways, the county court system there is grinding to a very unattractive conclusion. I ask your Lordships to join in emphasising that it is vitally important that any new legislation is properly funded. If it is not, then we are better off without the law being changed.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I begin by broadly welcoming the reformist zeal of this Government in seeking to implement Sir Robin Auld's invaluable report. Of course, one would not wish to imply blanket support for all the proposals. I believe that some of the more controversial ones now beginning their journey through the less perilous waters of the other place are guaranteed a rougher ride here. But the Government's desire to think the unthinkable, open the windows of the legal establishment and let in a little fresh air are to be welcomed.
	In broad terms, this Bill deserves the House's support. I suspect that some of the anxieties which have been, and will be, aired today can be ironed out during its passage. I detect—I hope not too naively—a genuine desire on the part of the Government to get it right in their restructuring of the lower courts and in bringing together the court system under one roof.
	I propose to talk about only three areas this evening: one of major importance; one in the middle order of concern; and one peripheral. Perhaps I may be permitted, in the time-honoured practice pioneered by the Miss World competition, to deal with the last item first; namely, the proposal to do away with the Supplemental List. Though not earth-shattering in its implication, like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, I am sad about this, and declare an interest as a current member of the said list.
	The attraction, as it were, of having to provide one's vicar with a moral reference, to sign, say, the application of a General for a shotgun certificate or to authorise the issuing of a passport to one of the better known peripatetic foreign correspondents seems to me to be a relatively harmless diversion within the scheme of things, though no doubt anathema to the tidy minds of Whitehall, despite the fact that it costs nothing. Those of us with little to do except make nuisances of ourselves one way or another in this place will mourn the passing of one of life's little pleasures.
	Next, I turn to the proposals relating to the measures aimed at improving the present abysmal rate of fines collection. The recent report of the Public Accounts Committee in another places makes sombre reading: upwards of 40 per cent of fines not collected; recipients of those awarded compensation still not in receipt of the money years after the offence; and a lack of joined-up co-operation between the various agencies years after this particular problem had been identified. Only time prevents me from carrying on this shameful list.
	I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the establishment of fines officers, but I should like to tease out from the Minister, if she is able at this stage, the answer to some questions. What will be the status of such officers, and from whose ranks are they likely to be drawn? After all, despite the welcome assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, they will be exercising quasi-judicial powers in that they will be able to vary fine orders up or down, presumably issue an attachment of earnings order or, indeed, even a clamping order, as we have heard, in respect of an offender's vehicle. I add at this juncture how pleased I am to note that the full range of penalties will now be used against the recalcitrant offenders.
	I remember when I was on the Bench that there was extreme reluctance to use the range of sequestration options on the perfectly understandable view, which has been echoed today from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that innocent parties—namely, members of the family—might suffer thereby. However, noble Lords might feel that it is about time that persistent offenders were forced to come face to face with the consequences of their actions even if they affect their nearest and dearest.
	It is absolutely essential that we get right the collection of fines as the overwhelming number of disposals are by that method. As we have heard, some 75 per cent has been estimated. If non-compliance persists on a large scale two factors will result: first, the law will be brought into disrepute and more and more offenders will accordingly try to evade payment; secondly—this is perhaps even more important—magistrates will inevitably be tempted to impose less appropriate sentences. I am not talking of community penalties, which we all support, but which are inevitably governed by the resources available at any given time, but the awarding of custodial sentences by magistrates when they are entitled to do so.
	My second question is in general terms. How many fines officers is it envisaged will be appointed: one to each court, or will they be allotted to areas? Where will the extra resources come from to fund them?
	Thirdly, although there is provision for a Bench to "take back" from a fines officer a case for re-sentencing, how would that work in practice? Is it realistic to think of it as anything other than a highly unusual exception to what is the norm?
	Lastly, I come to the more sensitive but critical areas of local justice and the relationship between local justice areas and the to-be-appointed courts administration councils. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has shot my bird, I shall not use the acronym. If I were to make a plea for maintaining the status quo in one respect, I think it would be with regard to the 42 geographical areas currently served by magistrates' courts committees. Those have been recast comparatively recently and there is evidence to show that the various agencies within them—the CPS, probation, police, local authorities and so on—are working together effectively. So, please, no change just for change's sake.
	Pursuing that theme, what will happen, as a result of the Bill, to the justices' chief executives? The current system has been up and running for only a few years, and another upheaval among experienced staff may have really serious consequences from both an administrative and morale point of view. I know that there is much disquiet at the abolition of magistrates' courts committees and whether local input will be diminished as a result, but we shall just have to see how effective the consultation process, and particularly the so-called "red card" system, will be between the new councils and the local chief officers, particularly in relation to court closures, on the subject of which so many noble Lords—one particularly thinks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in that context—are rightly concerned.
	It is fatal to say this, but it may be that I am the only Member of this House who, as chairman, has presided over the amalgamation of two old and well-established courts: not a bundle of laughs, to put it mildly, but I think it is fair to say—subsequent experience bears this out—that the world did not come to an abrupt stop because of it.
	We are all conscious of the fundamental importance of local justice, but I have to say that to take a stand now on court closures, however reprehensible some may be, brings to mind a stable door and a bolting horse, especially when one recalls that some 90 courts—I think it is 90—have closed in the past three years. Indeed, in my own county of Hampshire, the number of courts have been reduced in the past 12 years by two-thirds.
	What one can surely legitimately call for is an investigation into the hardship involved in defendants getting to court, where the distances involved are high and the public transport system inadequate. In that context one invariably thinks of Suffolk and even more so of Powys. I would beg that suitable resources be allocated to alleviate the worst examples.
	Surely, the whole point about bringing all courts under one roof nationally would be to improve inter-agency co-operation dramatically and to use the estate—no one has mentioned this today—as fully as possible. Indeed, in one small area I would be tempted to go further. At present, only each way and indictable offences can be moved to a more appropriate court; one, perhaps, with better video links or facilities for the disabled. Why should not that elasticity and freedom be accorded to summary cases as well? I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether that would be sympathetically considered.
	It seems to me that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the law at present—this is true of the lower courts as much as the others—is the confusion which has been allowed to build up in the minds of the public about who does what. I think that the Bill, with its unified national structure, will help to put that right. It is simply not good enough blindly hanging on to the past. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might even consider calling them justice boards instead of local justice boards, but perhaps that is a step too far. I do not think I shall try my luck on that.
	There are those who see in all these and other proposals the demise of the lay magistracy. I do not agree. To begin with, in a way Auld has provided a firm framework for the continuation of the lay magistracy and a magistracy with an even bigger role to play. Successive Lord Chancellors have endorsed that view, none more so than the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, if I may say so, is not given to going back on undertakings freely given on a number of occasions.
	It is up to all of us to ensure that we have as efficient a system of justice as possible, and one that enjoys the confidence and understanding of the people it seeks to serve. I believe that the Bill, appropriately amended, will provide a suitable launching pad for this essential objective.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I hope to better even my usual minimal standard of length of Second Reading speech. I do not intend, nor am I qualified, to make a Second Reading speech as such. I shall try to put down a marker of some areas where the Green Party is unhappy with the Bill and wants to try to amend it in Committee. Judging by the speeches we have heard, there will be plenty of opportunity for that.
	We have two areas of particular concern. The first is the whole business of centralisation, to which we are opposed in general principle unless a real case can be made for it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us that it is not a centralising Bill. But nothing that I have heard since has supported that. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was an important piece of evidence in arguing the case that we should be careful before over-centralising.
	The second area that I, and, I think, your Lordships House, will want to consider is Schedule 2 and the powers given to the enforcement officer. It is obvious from what has been said that the non-payment of fines and various other moneys decided on by the courts is a real and utter scandal that should not be tolerated in a civilised country. Some of the Bill's provisions will help. I was interested in the remarks made about the increasing use of distraint of property. However, we must be careful about the powers we give to enforcement officers to make judgments that are almost semi-judicial. There is much detailed work to be done on Schedule 2.
	Meanwhile, I congratulate the Government on trying to pull together a disparate system into something that makes rather more sense, but that must not be done at the expense of either individual liberty or local responsibility. It is in local responsibility that the help or otherwise of the judicial system will best be seen.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Seccombe I begin by declaring my interests as a layman. I sat as a magistrate for 13 years before entering your Lordships' House. Indeed, I was grateful to receive from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a polite letter explaining why, because I had not sat for 15 years, I therefore could not join the Supplemental List, to which my noble friend Lady Seccombe referred.
	I have been married to a practising barrister for 30 years and I have been both the victim of crime and a witness in court. On other occasions I am also spokesman for these Benches on home affairs. All those experiences have taught me that the Bill is certainly necessary and important, and I welcome it. But it must not only improve the efficiency by which the courts work but do so in such a way that we do not lose the system's fairness to all involved.
	I welcome the Bill, but I have concerns about its detail. That is where the real problems begin. As noble Lords have asked: where do we find the Bill's detail? So often it is missing. The measure relies heavily on order-making powers. Some important matters are simply not written into the Bill at all.
	I find it intriguing that a government who so often wax lyrical about the importance of devolving government to the regions have introduced a Bill that so comprehensively centralises power in the hands of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We are told that a new courts agency will replace magistrates' courts committees and the Court Service. Last week, as the noble and learned Lord said in his opening remarks, the Government published a statement about the principles that will form the basis of the agency's framework document. In that document they gave a commitment to publish both the framework document and the guidance to be issued to the court administration councils about how they should perform their role. That is just as it should be. But the question is: when will they be published? It is important that they are published in time to be fully considered by the House in Committee and beyond. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, nods her head. I hope that she can tell us when we shall receive those two documents.
	My noble friend Lady Seccombe referred to the fact that magistrates' courts committees are to be abolished. Many noble Lords have taken up that theme, concerned about the Government's apparent U-turn in changing management councils into something that will be within the remit of the Lord Chancellor. I do not propose to go into detail. The issue has been covered admirably by other noble Lords. But it should not be assumed that I do not feel as strongly as they do on the matter.
	I am also concerned about what appears to be the transfer of judicial functions to officials—or the potential for that to happen. The Government assure us that no such thing will occur. However, in two respects, the Bill allows for a transfer of judicial functions to officials. I refer to justices' clerks and fines. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, mentioned Clause 23(1), which appears to give the green light for the Lord Chancellor to transfer functions currently carried out by magistrates to justices' clerks. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that that is not the case, perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that the Bill as drafted maintains the status quo with regard to the dividing line between the functions of the magistrate and of the justices' clerk and that no further transfer of functions will take place. I bear the scars of a previous fight over Section 40 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
	I turn to fines. Again, other noble Lords have dealt with the matter in great detail, so I shall just mention one or two issues they did not raise. I endorse all of the concerns that have been expresssed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was reported as saying on BBC Online on the 29th of last month that,
	"it is absolutely essential, for public confidence to remain in the fine, that it is not seen as a synonym for getting off".
	He is absolutely right; no noble Lord has said anything to contradict that. We want him to have every opportunity to achieve just the result that he wants through the Bill. The question is whether the Bill's measures fairly give effect to what we believe to be the right way to enforce fines.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, referred to the drafting of Schedule 2. I am concerned that as drafted it appears to give fines officials the right to increase fines without reference back to the court. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was careful to tell us that that will not be the case. As I read the Bill, the right to decide appears to go to the fines official.
	I remind your Lordships that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave his press conference on the provisions, he was challenged by members of the fourth estate about whether the provisions would be in breach of the human rights convention, which requires punishments to be imposed by an independent and impartial tribunal after a fair and public hearing. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that the noble and learned Lord gave the sort of robust response for which he is somewhat famed. He is reported as saying:
	"Instead of taking fancy points about the Human Rights Act, tell me what's wrong with these powers".
	We may try to give one or two of those answers in Committee; I look forward to trying to do so. I promise the noble and learned Lord that I shall not take fancy points; I am not a lawyer and cannot compete.
	I turn to one or two issues that have not as yet been covered. In the same interview, the noble and learned Lord said:
	"I have complete confidence that these"—
	the fines officials—
	"will be officials who will exercise their powers responsibly".
	I am grateful for his confidence. The difficulty is that, when noble Lords come to scrutinise the Bill, they will need to be sure that they are also confident. At the moment, we have no idea how the fines officials will operate. We need the framework, and we need the guidelines.
	One noble Lord has already referred to the fact that Crown Court fines are not included in the system. However, I notice that the Public Accounts Committee, in its report, recommended that the enforcement of civil penalties should be combined with the system for enforcing criminal penalties. Did the Government consider that recommendation? What were their reasons for not taking the opportunity to implement those recommendations in the Bill, which does not, as I understand it, cover county court fines? Do the Government have plans to do that?
	I was pleased to see the report of the speech given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the magistrates' annual general meeting, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred. The noble and learned Lord stated that the White Paper,
	"banishes the myth of a few years ago, when many press articles claimed the lay magistracy was an endangered species . . . nothing could be further from the truth and . . . the Government remain fully committed to our unique system of lay justice".
	The noble and learned Lord nods his head. I appreciate that, in such matters, he has a genuine commitment. Therefore, I hope that, when we come to the Committee stage and beyond, the noble and learned Lord will clear up some of the question marks over the drafting of the Bill, which could be used by a future Lord Chancellor, who did not have the same honourable commitment, to bypass or supersede the lay magistracy.
	The matters to which I refer are in Clause 61, which proposes that High Court judges, circuit judges and recorders should be able to sit as magistrates when exercising their criminal, youth and family jurisdictions. The reasons given in paragraphs 179 and 180 of the Explanatory Notes are admirably practical. I agree with them. However, I have sat as a chairman of a family proceedings court. I have a little experience of its role. I am puzzled as to why the Government want to provide for High Court judges and other judges, including county court judges, to sit in a family proceedings court. I wonder whether it is so that county courts can take over disputes about maintenance payments when they are considering disputes about contact. It is puzzling. Overall, the provisions of Clause 61 could, in the hands of a future Lord Chancellor, provide an opportunity to transfer action and authority away from lay magistrates to the judiciary.
	The Government must have decided already that the Bill is less than perfect. They have presented us with yet another objectionable catch-all clause. Clause 98 is entitled, "Minor and consequential amendments, repeals etc.". The Secretary of State can do just about anything he likes to amend other enactments and can do so by order subject only to negative resolution. That is not good enough. I was concerned about such matters when I tabled an amendment to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Initially, noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches were not particularly concerned. However, having had the opportunity to consider the matter more carefully, they joined me in my deep concern. I welcome the remarks made today by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on that issue.
	I am grateful for the fact that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform will shortly put to the House a report on its experience of the clauses. Last week, I tabled amendments to a similar clause of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. I give notice that I shall table amendments to Clause 98 of this Bill.
	I look forward to the Committee stage when I hope we can ensure that the objectives and outcomes of the Bill are made plain and that necessary improvements will be made. There is no doubt that the court system is ripe for reform and improvement, but we must always remember that efficiency must never be sought at the expense of the most vulnerable in the justice system.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the major theme of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—incidentally, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, I do not see why we should not have a Lady Chancellor, and soon, under the terms of Clause 59—was that modern, efficient courts should be provided and that they should be free from avoidable delay and more in touch with the communities that they serve. That is the benchmark by which the provisions are to be judged.
	According to the Explanatory Notes, the provisions are cost neutral. On these Benches, we will need some persuading that that is so. We could take for an example the pension provisions. The Explanatory Notes tell us that 10,100 instant civil servants will be made, when the magistrates' courts staff are transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Presumably, that means a transfer from the local government pension scheme to the Civil Service pension scheme. That happened in Greater London not so long ago. Some 800 magistrates' court staff transferred from one scheme to the other at a cost of £8 million. If 10,000 staff are to be transferred, the pensions alone will cost us about £80 million. When one considers that and the crying need for money in other areas of the justice system, one wonders where the priorities are.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to the cost of maintaining buildings, which has been thrust upon litigants. My noble friend Lord Hooson referred to the fact that a new magistrates' court cannot be opened in mid-Wales because the money is not available. In Chester Crown Court, which was recently refurbished at a cost of millions, the water comes through the roof of two of the five courts. In the Mold Crown Court, built in the 1970s, there are buckets in the foyer and in the corridors. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, talked about using the estate as much as possible. In Knutsford, it is impossible to use the major court because the roof is liable to fall in. One wonders where the priorities are, when other costs are hidden in the provisions.
	Delay and efficiency were recurrent themes for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He did not refer—nor does the Bill—to what I and many others regard as the present scandal of delay caused by the failure of the privatised Prison Service to provide enough staff and vehicles to get prisoners to court on time. The problem has been studied in north Wales and Chester. In the past six months, in the three courts covered, there were 21 occasions on which the Prison Service completely failed to deliver the prisoner, never mind any delay. I was present recently when the court was told that the arrival of the prison van at eleven o'clock was due to a blockage on the motorway. The defendant said that he had been to Birkenhead magistrates' court, Birkenhead police station and Neston magistrates' court. The Crown Court was the last place of call. One of the judges in that area is keeping a file and demands an explanation for each delay. He has a thick file, which he hopes to present to the Lord Chancellor's Department, when the question of the renewal of those services comes up.
	There is also the question of court provision. I was in Wolverhampton recently. There were 28 prisoners in custody and three interview rooms. For half an hour, I queued with other counsel and solicitors to see a client charged with homicide, because the rooms were not available. In Birmingham, there are nine interview rooms, but only five are manned by the Prison Service. I am told that, in the past fortnight, queues have formed at the Old Bailey. Now that the problem has got to London, it may get through to the Lord Chancellor's Department that such things are the major cause of delay in the justice service. Every practitioner and every judge knows it. For that reason, I am somewhat dismayed that court services are likely to be privatised, in particular, court security, under Clause 2(4).
	The Lord Chancellor's Department is in the grip of the insurance companies of those privatised services. One of the problems is that in order to see someone in an interview room in the enclosed cell area, that person must be handcuffed by a member of staff and brought to the cell. Recently, both prosecution and defence wanted to demonstrate to the jury an alleged stabbing in the enclosed cell area. The privatised Prison Service refused to allow that unless the defendant was not merely handcuffed, but shackled by the legs. Consequently, the demonstration was not held. Applications are made to judges day in, day out, for defendants to be handcuffed in the dock, and that is always refused. That is where the delay is happening at present. The Lord Chancellor's Department has no grip on it.
	I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his consideration of the delay in civil cases. Perhaps I may make a short point. The crucial issue in civil cases is the listing. The most important person in the court is the listing officer who, in the provinces, is paid between £16,000 and £18,000 per year—significantly less than, for example, a fireman. Yet, the whole efficiency of the civil courts rests on that particular person. Delay in family matters can be crucial. It can make the difference between whether a person has custody or access to his children. Delay is hitting at the heart of the civil justice system and I do not know that the Bill does anything to tackle that.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also said that the purpose of the Bill is to decentralise management and bring about local accountability in a strong national framework. Perhaps we may consider the question of local accountability. At present, under magistrates' courts committees, the local magistrates and councillors have a contact with the community from which they spring. It is they who set the policy for the locality. The magistrates' courts committees are open to direct input from local authorities, interested bodies in the locality and individual people. They are concerned with the appointment of justices' clerks and their staff. They set the terms and conditions and directly supervise the way in which duties are carried out. That is what I would call "local accountability". They are also concerned, of course, with which courts stay open and which courts are closed. They are deeply concerned in decisions of that sort.
	What of the court administration councils that are being set up? According to Clause 4(3) of the Bill the Lord Chancellor will appoint the members of the council. He will give them guidance on their functions which, as many noble Lords have said, are completely undefined and can be added to or removed as the Lord or Lady Chancellor of the day thinks fit. He will receive recommendations from the court administration councils to which he has to give due consideration.
	Where is the local accountability there? We look further. We look for the principles in the document that has been produced and placed in the Library—again not part of the Bill and again reversible, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart said. It appears that the court administration councils have no voice in the appointment of chief officers. Indeed, the chief officers will not be implementing local policy; they will implement national policy. That is why they are there; they are part of the structure; the strong national framework.
	The chief officers must seek agreement of the court administration councils. It does not say in the Bill that they must obtain the agreement of those councils, but just that they must seek it. If there is a difference, it is to be referred to the chief executive and, in important matters, to the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, we go all the way round in a circle. I ask your Lordships to consider where on that circle there is any local input whatever. Local accountability does not exist under the Bill.
	Therefore, in whose hands are the provision of services for victims, witnesses, defendants, and those who use the courts to be placed? Are they to be placed in the hands of those who know something about local conditions or back in London in the Lord Chancellor's Department? I was most amused to hear my noble friend Lord Hooson refer to the Welsh Assembly. I am pleased to see that by a side wind we are to have increased devolution. I hope that that is conveyed to the appropriate commission which is sitting at the moment.
	Using the benchmark of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the Bill sets up modern, efficient courts free from avoidable delay and which are more in touch with the communities from which they come, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, it fails on every count.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, this has been a comprehensive and good natured debate. We have had 16 speeches of the highest quality about a Bill which has 101 clauses, seven schedules and 113 pages. Many of the speeches have raised important questions. I extend my warm support to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, because I counted altogether 34 questions that she was invited to answer. Many of the points are ones which will be taken further in Committee. I do not believe that we are anticipating a full and comprehensive answer to each point.
	First, perhaps I may say that although I am not in agreement with some of the statistics that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used, I pay tribute to his work as a reforming and progressive Lord Chancellor. We have seen evidence of that in civil justice; we now see evidence of it in criminal justice.
	As regards his statistics, the one overlaying the whole debate was that used by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford—the fact that 72,000 people are in prison. There must be a better way than that to proceed. I know that "modernisation" may not be a word greeted warmly by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. I believe that the way he said "modernisation" conveyed something. It is sad that Hansard does not contain any onomatopoeic references—

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I must say that what the noble Lord has just said is totally in his imagination.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I greatly regret that Hansard will not contain the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, pronounced the word. However, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has put his finger on something important. It has been echoed throughout the debate; namely, the whole question of resources.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have referred to the shadow of the Chancellor of the Exchequer overhanging the debate. There is little point in having fundamental reform of criminal justice if there are not the resources to accompany that reform.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will know from his experience in reforming civil justice that there was a debate in 1999 in which both he and I participated. We stressed how important it was that the information technology improvements promised at that time should be forthcoming. I was sad to see the noble and learned Lord's successor as head of civil justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Master of the Rolls, giving a warning earlier this year that without a multi-million pound cash injection for new technology the reforms begun three years ago without IT back-up will not work. That is a very serious situation. It is a cause for concern that we are now embarked on a fundamental reform of civil justice again without the necessary resources being earmarked.
	If only there was some way in which we could assist the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. When I held a number of posts in government, I recall that the successive Permanent Secretaries adjudicated on my efficiency as a Secretary of State on the basis of the extent to which I was able to obtain resources from the Treasury. I am sure that that must now be in the pages of history, but if it is still a fact, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept from the House its solid support for his determination to ensure the necessary resources?
	I have here the very creditable report of Lord Justice Auld. Sadly, it does not look as earmarked as it should be, but this is one I borrowed earlier; my earmarked copy is at home. It consists of 686 pages. Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I pay tribute to what is now a reference work on criminal justice. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said, it is an immensely valuable document.
	From the document we gather—it is a fact—that magistrates' courts deal with 95 per cent of all prosecuted crime and that lay magistrates handle 91 per cent of that work.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the criminal justice system is not working as well as it should. In all the speeches made in the debate there has been strong support of the need for reform. But before I go into the detail of some of the proposals, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who said that the lay magistracy should be "cherished and not spurned", and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden stressed its importance. In a particularly moving account, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, paid tribute to his late father's service to the community. I pay tribute from these Benches to the marvellous work carried out by generations of lay magistrates. They have served our communities well, often at great expense and inconvenience to themselves— unpaid servants giving a lifetime of service. I join my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith in paying tribute to them.
	As against that inherently local service, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out, we are presented with an enormous degree of centralisation. Clause 1 states very clearly that the general duty on the Lord Chancellor is to produce an efficient and effective system. There are some concerns about that. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to the power given to the Lord Chancellor under Clause 2(4). I agree that it appears to be a very wide clause and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, can give some reassurance as to the extent of that power.
	My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden said that we were faced with something that is a little bit of a muddle with ample scope for rationalisation, but noble Lords on all sides of the House believe that in the Bill there is an unjustified emphasis on centralisation. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor started the debate by saying clearly and resoundingly that this is not a centralising measure. I hope that he will forgive us if we put that to the test in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith inquired, what has happened between the Auld report, the Government's White Paper, Justice for All, and the Bill? Each of those documents represents a different stage in the journey. How have we ended up where we are today?
	The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, expressed concern about centralisation and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, stressed on several occasions the importance of local responsibility. But we are now faced with the abolition of magistrates' courts committees and their replacement by court administration councils. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will be remembered for his phrase that it is a "cackhanded approach".
	CACs—court administration councils—will have no executive authority. That is to lie with another agency which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, is not mentioned in the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns said, may we please have the framework documents in order that we may adjudicate on exactly what the powers of this agency will be?
	My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden said that we are turning magistrates' clerks into civil servants and he instanced the fact that, as civil servants, officials will be given financial targets against which their performance will be judged. That gives rise to all kinds of worries and concerns.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred to resignations and diluted citizen ownership. I hope that that will not continue. He instanced examples of it in the past.
	As to the supplemental list, I join my noble friend Lady Seccombe in asking why abolish it? We have two distinguished members of the supplemental list in the House. My noble friend Lady Seccombe was too modest to mention that she joins the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, as a member of the supplemental list, a roll of honour which they thoroughly deserve.
	A number of noble Lords referred to the issue of court closures, which is a cause of considerable concern. Since 1997, 96 magistrates' courthouses have closed in England and Wales, whereas only 14 have opened. What effect that will have is an area of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, quite rightly referred to the situation in Powys with the PPP. I do not know to what extent the Welsh Assembly or the Secretary of State for Wales have been consulted. I hope that we shall hear more about that in a few moments time.
	As to fines, there is general support for the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, it cannot be right that the recovery rate in urban areas is 34 per cent and in rural areas 89 per cent. Those are telling statistics on fines enforcement. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that we must address poor performance, and he has very strong support in that respect.
	But giving fines officers powers to increase fines, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, is a cause for worry. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that we should not worry, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out that there are considerable worries about the power in Schedule 2, Part 2, paragraph 9(4) at page 61 of the Bill. All these issues will have to be considered later.
	As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, it is the poor and vulnerable members of society and the community who suffer from the inefficient administration of justice. I join with him in the tribute he paid to citizens advice bureaux; I am proud to be president of my local CAB. I was a little worried that the right reverend Prelate felt that Surrey was God-fearing whereas Bedford was not. Perhaps he should issue a personal statement on that. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, pointed out the dangers of the least cost option, with which I strongly agree.
	The most powerful speech came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. As a mere modest solicitor, perhaps I may pay tribute to him. His unique position in being able to address this Chamber on these issues is greatly to our advantage. We were very concerned to hear his comments on Clause 87, which he described in various terms: he said that it was "totally misconceived" that full costs should have to be recovered; he referred to the "grave danger" of Access to Justice gains being lost; he described the accommodation of the commercial court as "a disgrace"; he referred to technology "repeatedly promised" but not delivered; and he said that resources were urgently required. That is a resounding message to which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, will respond.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, went quite Shakespearian. I join him in worrying about the Henry VIII clauses and about seeking reform of an approach dating back to the time of Henry II; namely, the circuits.
	Questions were raised about what will happen to the Duchy of Lancaster. Speaking as a former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am very worried about the statement in paragraph 51 on page 13 of the Explanatory Notes that the current responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be transferred to the Lord Chancellor. We need a response on that point. Previous Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster whom I have consulted seemed completely unaware of this massive change in what were our responsibilities. I hope that we can hear more on the subject.
	I turn finally to Clauses 92 and 93 dealing with periodical payments—which I think have caught a few people by surprise. I never criticise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for finding a primary legislative opportunity of introducing such provisions. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, in its present form with provision for variation this will provide serious problems for insurers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, welcomed structured settlements, as many of us do, but there is a danger under the present provisions, if enacted by statutory instrument—namely, a review—that no cases will ever close. Perhaps, as Senior Partner in a firm of solicitors, Beachcroft Wansbroughs, I should welcome this provision. The thought of no case ever being able to close is a prospect which lawyers might support, but which no sensible lawyers would want. We must not allow anxiety to return over the awards of damages through a threat of variation on either side. Perhaps the answer is to move in that direction only in the most exceptional cases and only after careful assessment of the impact on the insurance and financial sector.
	We have instanced previously in this House the danger of retrospective legislation. The opening up of awards for review in the future must not be allowed to apply to any existing claims for which premiums have been collected and for which reserves have already been set. There is a danger of the shadow of uncertainty remaining over civil litigation for some time. While I welcome the opportunity for the courts to order structured settlements, there must be a finality to the process.
	We have had an interesting debate. I now look forward to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. We on this side of the Chamber await the Committee stage, when we shall seek to improve the Bill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straightaway how much I welcome the opportunity to respond to what—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said—has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. But as he indicated, there have been in excess of 34 questions. The noble Lord asked a further four. I have in front of me sufficient paper to do a creditable job but I shall not seek to answer each and every question now. However, just to reassure my officials, I should inform your Lordships that I do have an answer in full to each and every question that has been asked. I pay tribute to all those who have made such high-quality contributions. In this debate, we have heard the "gems" of the House. As I look round the Chamber, I think that we need to celebrate the fact that this evening the Lords have shown their worth.
	I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to do what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has done on so many occasions; namely, to applaud the lay magistracy for the sterling work that its members do. That has been echoed by a number of speakers. There can have been no stronger advocate for the lay magistracy than the present Lord Chancellor, who, over the past five or six years, has made his support known and felt universally.
	Typically, magistrates' courts are community courts, and the Government have demonstrated their faith in the lay magistracy by doubling magistrates' sentencing powers in the Criminal Justice Bill. The 30,000 magistrates represent one of the most significant commitments to volunteering in this country and they have this Government's every confidence.
	It has been a pleasure to listen to the Bill being welcomed on all sides of the House. I thank in particular the right reverend Prelate for giving us his blessing in this regard; and it was sweet indeed to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—for whom we have great respect—give it his rare and much treasured endorsement. I for one shall savour that for a long time to come.
	As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor reminded us in his opening remarks, reform of the criminal justice system is key to achieving the balance of rights and responsibilities that were at the heart of this year's gracious Speech. The Government have committed themselves to a long-term strategy of reform and modernisation of the criminal justice system. Although we have achieved a great deal already in this direction—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his compliments in that regard—we have to do better still to make the criminal justice system more "joined up", fit for this century and capable of delivering justice for all.
	The tenor of the debate was well summed up by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, when he spoke of his optimism. I do not think that that optimism is misplaced. This is a carefully crafted Bill. The stakeholders have been fully engaged. I thank again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for his compliments on the care with which officials have kept the judiciary informed.
	We have had extensive consultation with the magistracy and with all those who are engaged in the delivery of justice. It must be stressed that the Government are not blindly following an agenda of modernisation. In the Bill, we are preserving carefully that which exists and has been proven to work well. But at the same time, we are improving on those areas which no longer work as effectively as they should. The provisions in the Bill are the result of an independent evidence-based assessment of what is needed for thoroughgoing and systematic improvement of the courts. It finds its basis in pragmatism and good sense, and many of its proposed changes are entirely demand led. The Bill modernises the courts system in such a way that it better serves the system—members of the public, victim or defendant—in order that we can remain rightfully proud of our traditions of criminal justice.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with his usual acuity, went straight to the detail of the provision. I shall answer his points in similar detail in due course, although not this evening; but many of the provisions upon which he alighted are re-enactments of provisions which are already in being. I hope that in due course the noble and learned Lord will be comforted to know that, for instance, the provision in Clause 29 is currently set out in Section 53A of the Justices of the Peace Act. In many cases we are not doing much that is new; we are reintroducing that which has already been found to work well.
	I appreciate that tonight we have concentrated, rightly, on the changes to the structure of magistrates' courts committees. But that is not the only change. We are also doing something very new. For the first time, we are giving an element of local accountability to county courts and Crown Courts. We are asking for work to be done in partnership so that local needs can be better met. We should all be proud about that. It is important that we remember that this is not simply a reform of the administration of magistrates' courts.
	The agencies are not creatures of primary legislation—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of the Wirral, raised that issue. The Court Service, which administers the county court, the Crown Court and the higher courts, is not in primary legislation. Framework documents are placed before Parliament. We have already committed to working in partnership with stakeholders in its drafting. The agency will be accountable to Parliament, directly through the Ministers of the Lord Chancellor's Department, unlike magistrates' courts committees.
	I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the guidelines must be published as swiftly as possible. I cannot give the noble Baroness a date. I agree that the documents are important. My only caveat is that it is important that the stakeholders are involved in those documents so that what is produced is sound. We will undertake to ensure that they are published as soon as is reasonably practicable. When I have a date, I will apprise the noble Baroness of it.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated that the Courts Bill will be crucial in delivering modern, efficient courts that are free from unnecessary and avoidable delay, in touch with the communities they serve and responsive to the needs of their users. A new unified administration is the key building block in our strategy to overhaul the criminal justice system. It will simplify court structures. Instead of 43 separate administrative systems, we will have only one, ensuring greater uniformity and consistency. Unification provides the structure for greater integration of the criminal courts and will allow for easier implementation of the other important reforms in the Bill.
	I wish to lay to rest some misconceptions that may be developing in noble Lords' minds. I will do so as quickly as possible. I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that he correctly assessed the future position. It will be possible to allow a more efficient use of the courts estate through the unified administration. Sharing accommodation can lead to the provision of better facilities and services to customers and staff. We have already identified some hearing centres that will be saved from closure through unified administration, thus improving access to justice locally. Co-location of county courts in magistrates' court buildings already exists in some places; for example, in Rotherham, Kendal and Ashford. Altrincham County Court has recently moved into the improved accommodation in Trafford Magistrates' Court. We will be able to do that much more systematically.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Further to the point that she has just made, is it conceivable that, with joint use, county courts in some parts of the country might reopen?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be possible to assess local needs. On occasion, magistrates' courts committees have looked simply at the estate needed to serve as a magistrates' court, not the broader estate. As a result, courts have been rationalised and closed. At the same time, sometimes in the same locality there has been a need—sometimes pressing—for county, or other, court space. That space could be used very creatively if there were a unified system. Unification enables that rationalisation and proper use to be undertaken to the advantage of the local community. That must be a very good thing.
	The Association of Justices' Chief Executives has supported the Bill. It has been, and will continue to be, fully consulted on all the proposals so far. It sits on the steering group that is managing the work, so its interests are fully represented.
	Some noble Lords expressed anxiety about the 42 criminal justice areas. I can confirm that they will be a building block of the new organisation. We have an opportunity to do much good work. Cases can, therefore, be moveable. Clauses 25 and 39 provide for the sharing of estate that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, sought.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised passionately the concern about court administration councils. They will not replace magistrates' courts committees. They are one element in a new system, not only for magistrates' courts, but for all the courts about which I have spoken, including county courts and Crown Courts. The new system is based on an executive agency, but the CACs have an important partnership role.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked why there was no detail about court administration councils in the Bill. As the statement of principle makes clear, the CACs will not act alone but with the civil servant chief officers. The whole point is that they will work in partnership. The Bill cannot deal with arrangements in a departmental agency. It simply sets out, therefore, the fundamental aspects of the councils, which will have to be finely honed.
	The noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Goodhart, shared several anxieties. Both said that the role of the council should be set out in a statutory instrument, not in guidance. I reassure noble Lords that we do not believe it will be easy to override councils' recommendations. As well as guidance to councils, the agency's framework document aims and objectives will require working in partnership. The independent inspectorate will review whether it is working. An annual report, which will be laid before Parliament, will report on that.
	We want to unify the courts, not to replicate the organisational boundaries of the current system, which Sir Robin Auld rightly criticised, nor to break up the civil and family courts system. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in his usual passionate way, said that local Benches were going. No, they are not. They are not going anywhere. Lay justices will be allocated to a local justice area. One of the provisions, in Clauses 14 and 16, that will prevail is the arrangement for electing Bench chairmen and deputy chairmen. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also raised concerns about court closures. As I said, unification will allow more efficient use.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised a number of concerns about whether the role of the magistrates' court clerk was going to change and whether we would be creating a different creature, which might have some aberrant effects. I assure the noble and learned Lord that that is not our intention. He said that the justices' clerks would be brought under the control of the Lord Chancellor. The short answer to that is, "no". Clause 24(1) makes clear that a justices' clerk exercising advisory or judicial functions is not subject to the direction of the Lord Chancellor—or of anyone else. No material changes are proposed to the current powers of justices' clerks.
	The noble and learned Lord also asked about Benches being able to remove justices' clerks. Clearly, a clerk's functions include satisfying his Bench. If he or she does not do that, the magistrates will be able to communicate that to the local chief officer, who makes decisions within the court administrative council. There will be very close consultation with the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association on the general role of the justices' clerks. The CCMCC represents those who manage magistrates' courts, not magistrates themselves. The powers of the justices' clerk in the Bill are a re-enactment of existing powers. I fully appreciate the importance of going through that in detail. We shall do so in Committee, but I assure the noble and learned Lord that it is not our intention to create a different creature. We intend the justices' clerks to continue with the independence of role that has been so valuable in years gone by. We also intend them to have similar responsibilities.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said with such care. If it is not inconvenient, will she say a word about the criteria that will apply to the appointment—and by whom—of justices' clerks under the Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I understand it, the appointment system for justices' clerks will not be greatly changed. We are looking carefully at what changes, if any, the new structure will create. I can write to the noble and learned Lord with greater detail on how we propose to do that. I assure him that we take that seriously, particularly now that it has been highlighted. We did not believe that it would be a problem, because we felt that we were simply echoing what was already there. I assure the noble and learned Lord that we shall wish to address any matters that have been highlighted, because we do not want there to be a difficulty on this issue.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice raised a number of issues about how the costs of the Bill will be met. There will be costs associated with setting up the new agency and some costs for the new inspectorate and criminal procedure rule committee. These costs will be met from within the spending limits of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, using appropriate phasing and piloting as necessary. The noble and learned Lord, with his usual precision, has highlighted a number of issues that I am sure will excite our interest for some time.
	I dare not go further. My noble friend Lord Lea made a telling point about what will happen to the workers. Under an order made last November, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed an authorised contract for staff to be appointed on a temporary basis. There are no plans to privatise the courts. This power is useful so that my noble and learned friend can arrange for agency typists or clerical officers and for IT-based services, for example for civil processing.
	I now see that I have been speaking for 21 minutes. I have an answer to each and every noble Lord. I am sorry that I shall not be able to give them all. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked a number of questions about how the magistrates' courts committees in Wales will be rearranged and the role of the Welsh Assembly. I shall write to noble Lords on those issues that I have not been able to deal with tonight. On behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and myself, I should like to say that this has been a very interesting debate. We shall consider every suggestion that has been made before Committee stage. If we feel that changes are necessary, we shall certainly seek to consider them properly so that we shall be able to give a proper answer when the Bill comes back in Committee. I thank noble Lords for their support. It is unusual to get wholehearted, if critical, support from all sides of the House. I very much welcome it.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Recycling

Lord Lucas: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the way that recycling targets for local authorities are set and administered.
	My Lords, I do not want to stray too far this evening. We have a fascinating Bill before the House that will enable us to be fairly wide-ranging in talking rubbish, which is always their Lordships' pleasure. I suppose I may stray a little into the question of whether we sometimes seek to recycle merely because it is possible rather than because it is in some way advantageous to the environment. I want to concentrate narrowly on the subject at hand, which is the recycling targets set for local authorities and how that system is administered.
	There are some interesting figures on the subject. The Government have set general targets. I think I am right in saying that we recycle about 11 per cent at the moment and that that is to be raised to 25 per cent in 2005-06. That is still well below the figures set by some of our continental competitors. Even within the current performance there is an extraordinary diversity between local authorities. The list of the worst performing authorities features Amber Valley and Broxtowe both at 3 per cent, a number of authorities around 4 or 5 per cent, which are quite common figures, and Sunderland coming in at 1 per cent. There is quite an interesting quote from the leader of Sunderland council, who said that he could not be bothered with recycling. It was cheaper to stuff it all into landfill. He is clearly an unregenerate free market advocate. It is a pleasure to see that from a Labour council, but it is not exactly what the Government are aiming for.
	At the other end we have councils achieving nearly 30 per cent. Bath and North East Somerset come in at 24 per cent, Buckinghamshire at 23 per cent, Chiltern at 27 per cent, Dorset at 27 per cent and Hampshire at 25 per cent. Interestingly, all of those stellar performances that I have noticed come from Liberal or Conservative councils and the ones at the bottom come from Labour councils. That balance says something about the parties' commitment to recycling when it comes down to deciding whether that is what they are going to spend their money on.
	One effect of that enormous diversity is the choice facing the Government of whether to concentrate on those local authorities at the bottom of the pile or on those at the top of the pile in order the improve the overall performance in the years running up to 2005-06. The answer seems to be that the Government are entirely impartial in this. They will impose the same sort of level of increase on all of them. So if you are running around at 1 per cent at the moment, you will be asked to get up to 10 per cent by 2005-06. And if you are running around at 25 per cent, you will be asked to get to 40 per cent by 2005-06.
	But those achievements are entirely different in their nature. If you are being asked to get from 1 per cent to 10 per cent, it is rather in the nature of falling off a log. All you have to do is improve the level of recycling you are achieving at your central waste depots. You should be able to get 50 or 60 per cent recycling efficiency out of a central waste depot. If that is a reasonable proportion of the waste you are collecting—say, 30 per cent of a council's waste—simple mathematics show that you can probably get up to 15 or 20 per cent overall recycling just by dealing with what is happening at your central depots.
	If, on the other hand, you are being asked to get from 25 to 40 per cent, you are essentially being asked to improve performance at the kerbside. That is a much more expensive business and involves dealing with all sorts of problems in getting people to play their part in recycling. It also involves long journey times and having to build facilities to handle all the separated waste once it arrives at its destination. That is a much more expensive business.
	It seems strange that the Government announced that of the support that is to be made available for this matter, 20 per cent of it is to be made available to high performing authorities and 80 per cent to low performing authorities. In other words, the authorities that need the money are not to get it and the authorities that do not need the money are to get it. Of course, that has nothing to do with the high performing authorities being opposition authorities and the low performing authorities being Labour-led authorities. That seems to me entirely the wrong way of going about it.
	The Government have produced a very interesting strategy paper from the Strategy Unit entitled, Waste not, Want not, which sets out clearly what a successful waste strategy will require. The paper refers to,
	"a robust long term economic and regulatory framework . . . significant increases in the landfill tax and new incentives for households to reduce and recycle waste; a package of short to medium term measures to put England on the path to more sustainable waste management including measures to slow the growth in the amount of waste; investment in recycling infrastructure; and support for new alternative waste management technologies; and additional funding accompanied by radical reform of delivery structures to ensure the overall aim is realised".
	I think that that is quite clear, accurate and reasonable.
	What the paper is saying, if I understand it correctly, is that to achieve the sort of levels we are aiming at—the 25 to 40 per cent range—we need a government-led structure. We need government support for the sort of changes that have to take place in order to make that level of recycling possible, economical and sensible. We need "incentivisation". If you are going to build a centralised facility for separating rubbish or for recycling organic waste or for incineration, you need local support. At the moment the structures do not exist to enable a council to give something back to those people who will suffer as a result of having such a centralised facility built next to them. It may not be so much a case of pollution, although pollution certainly comes into it, but a great deal of transport pollution arises from a lot of heavy, smelly lorries travelling to and from these facilities. It would be helpful, for instance, if a local council could arrange reduced cost electricity for those living next to an incineration plant generating electricity. That sort of thing is not possible without government support. It is the sort of measure that needs to be put in place before you ask a council to move from a target of 25 to 40 per cent in this regard.
	Situations can arise where there is no market for the product that is due to be recycled. Some councils have had to abandon cardboard because the market is flooded by German imports. If councils are to move from a 25 per cent to a 40 per cent target, and if they are to be asked to undertake difficult tasks, the Government must ensure that markets exist for the products that councils must recycle to achieve that target. To move from 1 to 10 per cent is easy, but to move from 25 to 40 per cent requires a council to undertake difficult tasks. To do that well requires government support. Councils are likely to have to build central facilities and to experience planning difficulties in doing so.
	Improved planning regulations do not yet exist to enable these matters to be dealt with in a sensible time-scale and on a sensible basis. We do not have the system of personal incentives and rules—the sort of carrot and stick approach—that the Germans have in place in order to reach their 40 per cent targets. Therefore, if you are dealing with kerbside recycling, you are faced with great difficulties in doing better than the sort of good average of 60 per cent compliance, which is what we get in this country. You are already hobbling yourself if you are trying to reach German targets, which are around 40 per cent, but they are doing that with near 100 per cent compliance because of the way their government have set out the structures, incentives and sticks that surround recycling in that country. If we are to push councils at the top end of the range, we need the Government to be there first and to work in partnership alongside them.
	There is an emphasis on centralisation in the Government's approach. Centralisation is enormously expensive for a rural authority as there are long runs involved in collecting rubbish. It may have to be collected in three or four different cycles in order to keep its components separate. That adds greatly to costs. A great deal of extra traffic is created travelling to some central location and one concentrates the pollution which arises from that. In some circumstances perverse incentives arise. Some councils are now having to dissuade their residents from operating compost heaps as they do not count towards recycling. You would not guess that from reading the strategy paper which positively encourages composting. It states:
	"Over 50% of the household waste sent to landfill sites or incinerated in England could be diverted from incineration and landfill through home composting and recycling on the basis of current best practice".
	If 20 per cent of a council's householders compost their organic rubbish, that 20 per cent does not count towards recycling targets. A council almost has to send dustmen in to raid compost heaps; it certainly has to send circulars around saying, "Please give us your lawn cuttings, please give us your hedge clippings. Please create more organic waste so that we can meet our targets". That is a ridiculous and perverse incentive. The structures ought to be in place so that the ambitions set out on page 4 of Waste not, Want not can be achieved. Currently, the regulations point in the other direction. One cannot count builders' rubble towards recycling, for example—it just does not feature. It is one of the major items that is tipped into landfill and one of the main items that is fly-tipped, but that does not count towards recycling targets. Many perverse incentives come into play when a council is asked to go from 25 per cent to 40 per cent.
	There is a lot of potential for the Government to say to councils, "Look, we will come down on you if you are running below our targets. If you are running above our targets, think of us as partners—think of this as the golden uplands that you should reach towards. When you arrive, you can expect not to be kicked any more and not to face financial disincentives. You will not be asked to put up your council tax by immense amounts every year, way in excess of the tax collected by councils such as Sunderland, just because we are pushing you to do far better than other people are being asked to do." Recycling should be something that is praised and that people are supported for doing.
	There are problems even with organic waste, on which the Government are putting much emphasis and which is one of the most important aspects of recycling for councils at the top end of the range. Kerbside recycling of organic waste means that people bring it to some central composting facility. By doing that, they do not please the National Rivers Authority because it is likely to create a great deal of pollution. Finally, a large quantity of compost is left that is unusable, because the animal by-products order prevents people from doing so. There are likely to be animal by-products in organic waste, and we cannot spread on fields or use as domestic compost products that may be so polluted. Councils are being forced to recycle something that cannot be recycled.
	My plea to the Government is that councils that are doing well should feel rewarded. A council may manage to get from the government target for 2005-06, which has already been achieved, to the government target for 2015 some 10 years early. That should be a process of walking happily, hand in hand with the Government, like the two children in the Startrite advertisement who walk into the golden future. People should not be made to feel that those who have done well be punished more, while those who have done extremely badly or have done nothing are given an easy time and a great deal of government money.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing this important and timely topic. We on these Benches believe that the Government's targets are not ambitious enough, especially for household recycling. The target for 2010 is 30 per cent plus, but we believe that it should be more like 60 per cent. That target has already been reached in Austria, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, some local authorities here are very near to the 30 per cent.
	Governments have been slow to act on this matter over the years. People who have travelled or lived abroad know that, even going back 20 or 30 years, other countries have been way ahead of us. In this country, there has been increased use of landfill and incineration, which concerns these Benches. Britain is very near the bottom of EU recycling league tables but, at the same time, the number of incinerators is set to become quite large if people get permission for them. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we currently recycle something like 11 per cent. I have read 9 per cent and 10 per cent, but our rate is something like one-tenth. That is one of the lowest rates in Europe.
	Landfill has continued apace, despite the introduction of the landfill tax credits scheme. The Government seem happy to propose increasing incineration, although many people are concerned and believe that it poses unacceptable health hazards.
	More research is needed into the environmental and health impacts of incineration. I should be interested to learn whether the Government are considering that. Large sections of the public are opposed to it, and it causes great problems when planning applications come through. That must be recognised. We on these Benches want a moratorium on the new incinerators until there has been proper research into the environmental and health impacts of incineration. We must know that it is safe and the best environmental option. Many believe that using incineration encourages people to create more rubbish in order to feed the incinerator; that has been found to be the case.
	If we are to reach the 60 per cent target of doorstep recycling, much needs to change. That could be done through a national recycling programme in five years if money was available and channelled to local authorities by reforming the landfill tax credits scheme. We currently raise about £500 million a year through the landfill tax levy but very little of it is redirected to support recycling schemes. Currently, about 20 per cent can be claimed back by waste companies for environmental projects, which have been managed by a body called ENTRUST. There has been much criticism of that body.
	Normally, my noble friend Lord Greaves would have spoken in this debate but unfortunately he is not well. As it happens, today I found on my computer upstairs that "What is New in the Library" had a rather interesting paper on the landfill tax credits scheme and the various associated problems, but I have not had enough time as I should like to digest it. I understand that the Government recognise that there have been problems.
	I turn to the sequence of events. In March 2001, at the time of the Budget, the Government were attracted to replacing all or part of the landfill tax credits scheme with a public spending programme to direct resources towards government priorities on sustainable waste management. There was not a consultation paper until April 2002. It was issued to seek views on the priorities for funding from revenue currently spent through the landfill tax credits scheme and to examine the merits of different funding mechanisms and other arrangements. In the Pre-Budget Report of November 2002, the Government announced that the scheme would be reformed from April 2003. They announced that the tax credits scheme will continue to make grants for local community environmental projects with approximately one-third of the funding of the current scheme but that the remainder will be allocated to public spending to encourage sustainable waste management. I hope that the Minister will clarify further the Government's intentions regarding reform of the system and how much extra they believe might be used to help local authorities with recycling.
	The Local Government Association has commented on the issue, particularly in light of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. I draw the attention of noble Lords to its concerns. It recognises that the targets from the EU landfill directive are very challenging and it is pleading for more resources to be made available to allow councils to recycle more and to develop other programmes so that they do not have to put so much into landfill. However, it recognises, as we all do, that moving away from a traditional reliance on landfill cannot be achieved overnight. Our problem is that we in this country have been rather slow even getting started. If waste disposal authorities are to comply with landfill targets, they may end up diverting funds away from the real challenges of providing alternatives to landfill.
	Local authorities are very clear that the Government need to play a big part in changing public attitudes to household waste. We in Britain have failed to do that. If we are to get higher rates of recycling and composting, and reduce public opposition to the building of incinerators and so on, the Government need to play a greater national role. One of the real problems with waste management is that one authority—the lower tier—collects the waste and is responsible for recycling but another authority disposes of the waste. That is the real problem that the Government must tackle when considering reforms of the landfill tax credit. The current arrangements do not provide incentives for the authorities that are not recycling very well because those authorities are not responsible for getting rid of the waste. That is one of the key issues. The Government could be taking a bigger leadership role in trying to change the public's attitude to waste disposal, recycling and re-use.
	I should like to raise another issue that, although not about recycling, affects the amount of material to be recycled. We are lagging behind also in reducing the amount of waste produced in daily life, as evidenced by the amount of packaging on supermarket products. Someone suggested that everyone should remove waste packaging from such products and leave it behind, and I understand that one or two people have been doing so and asking the supermarkets to dispose of it. Such action might change things. However, that point is perhaps wide of this debate.
	As I said, it is regrettable that we lag so far behind the rest of Europe. A nation as advanced and economically prosperous as we are should be doing better. I believe that four simple steps would go a long way in bringing waste removal into harmony with the environment. We should have a national recycling programme, which could, as I said, enable us to achieve the 60 per cent target by 2010. We also need tougher action on reducing the amount of waste produced. If we could also reform the landfill tax and call a moratorium on new incinerators, I believe that Britain would be well on the way to joining the ranks of green European nations. Those steps would enable us to do far better in reaching our recycling targets.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing this debate, even though it is being held while the House is considering the Government's Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. Recycling is a very serious subject. England currently has a growing waste mountain. The way in which England currently manages its waste both harms the environment and squanders resources. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, pointed out very strongly, we are also miles behind the pack. As one of the world's most advanced technical nations, we should certainly not be in that position. We need to act now to reduce waste growth and to recycle more.
	As I said, the Government have introduced a Bill to start to tackle the problem. However, we on this side of the House believe that the Government's management of the country's waste and emissions strategy can be summed up as too little and too late. Let us hope that it is not too late. The Government's strategy, however, certainly needs to be considerably more aggressive. We believe that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, the Government have set their targets in the Bill too low. Not only are the targets the bare minimum required to meet the EU requirements; they send out the wrong message.
	The Conservative Party would propose the target that 50 per cent of household waste should be recycled or composted by 2020, compared with Labour's lower target of 30 per cent by 2010. We believe that every home in the country should have their recyclables collected separately from their other waste. Local residents should be able to drop larger items of recyclable waste off at collection points, recycling centres and so on. There should be a nation-wide scheme to provide subsidised compost bins and water butts.
	However, we support the Government's introduction of a tradable permit system for the disposal of household waste by landfill. We would increase councils' resources for recycling and composting by reforming the landfill tax credit scheme. That has also been touched on today. There is clearly a significant financial gap in how local authorities will achieve these targets.
	Recently, there have been a number of EU regulations for which the Government were ill-prepared—for example, the regulation relating to fridges. In 2001, it was brought to the attention of the UK Government that the regulation would also include the insulating foam in the doors and the walls of fridges. Her Majesty's Government complained of the late finding of information passed on by the European Union. Nevertheless, this deadline caught the Government unaware.
	While the European Commission must accept some blame for lack of clarity, the overwhelming responsibility for mishandling the implementation lies with Her Majesty's Government. We find it deeply disturbing that the Government signed up to the regulation while still suffering knowledge gaps about its full impact.
	We then had the WEEE directive. The directive does not place obligations on local authorities but on producers and retailers. It is a technical directive. Again it was not very well prepared for and has caused some embarrassment.
	Ahead of us we have the End of Life Vehicles Directive. From 2007 onwards motorists will be able to hand back their cars free of charge. But from now until when the directive becomes law, motorists will have to pay for disposal. The British Metals Recycling Association, representing scrap metal merchants, predicts that the number of illegally dumped cars will triple to about 750,000 per year as a result of this new legislation. Peter Mathews, a BMRA executive committee member, said:
	"Car dumping is going to be a much bigger problem than dumped fridges".
	That is quite a salutary statement because the Government, and certainly the local authorities, know what the situation was like with dumped fridges. Incompetence and dilatoriness will lead to even more fly-tipping and illegal dumping.
	Currently, local authorities do not have the powers to deal with the situation and the Environment Agency does not have the will. The Environment Agency alone has the power to check or inspect the performance of organisations in the waste disposal business. It does not appear to be prepared to attack the cowboy end of the business—those people who start the job, do the part they want, find easy or are set up for, and then leave the rest dumped illegally, probably on someone else's land.
	I ask Her Majesty's Government and the Minister to give a commitment that all extra moneys raised from landfill tax will go to local authorities in order to allow them to make the necessary investment for doorstep collections of source separated waste, and, probably equally importantly, for the capital equipment needed to treat waste.
	The other day the industry informed me that in order to meet the Government's targets—not ours—which are less than ours would have been, the industry needs to invest £1.5 billion per annum for 10 years. I ask the Government: under the present strategy, where are the incentives coming from to motivate the private sector? Where is the investment capital coming from? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that to charge per item for household rubbish in the street will just compound the problem and lead to more illegal tipping and more cowboy operators while doing nothing to encourage investment?
	I should not touch on the Bill in this debate but, from what I have seen and from our current position, it seems that there is no clear financial plan. We do not know where the money will come from to make investments in order to allow local authorities to get ahead of the game and to allow the country as a whole to catch up, let alone to get ahead.
	We are all suffering from another complication in this issue and I ask the Government whether they will help us out. It concerns definitions. There are no universally understood definitions of "municipal waste", of "biodegradable" or of "recycling". Everyone has different ideas. When it comes to biodegradable matter, when is something fully degraded? Several scientific issues arise here and straightforward definitions are required. In order to make sense of the Government's strategy and the structures which, it is hoped, will be set up under the Bill, those definitions need to be clarified.
	Having said that, we as a party totally support the Government's Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, although I realise that it does not form part of this debate. However, my noble friend Lord Lucas made some pertinent points about the balancing of the structures—the geographical balances—and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response to some of the points raised.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for initiating the debate. This is a very important subject and one of the most important issues on which my department has to deliver. As noble Lords have said, there is before the House a Bill related to the subject matter of the debate. Therefore, much is going on but, from the Government's point of view, much of it stems from the waste strategy that we published more than two years ago. That strategy set out a vision for achieving more sustainable waste management and it put in place a number of steps to achieve that. The strategy is based, first, on waste minimisation wherever possible and, thereafter, on maximising the re-use and recycling of the waste that is produced.
	In order to achieve that, the Government have set certain targets. They have set demanding targets for local authorities in England so that, compared with the 1998-99 levels, the amount of household waste recycled or composted will double by 2003-04 and treble by 2005-06. That target is fairly demanding. Likewise, in order to encourage business further to reduce waste and to put to better use the waste that is produced, in Waste Strategy 2000 the Government set a target to reduce by 2005 the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill to 85 per cent of the 1998 level.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that the targets for recycling and for the reduction of landfill are ambitious. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also implied that. It is true that, as noble Lords have said, we are behind certain other countries. We are clear that we want to increase the amount of recycling over the coming years to 40 per cent and more. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Baroness set a higher target, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, set a slightly lower target than the Liberal Democrats but slightly higher than ours. That is an interesting juxtaposition of the parties.
	We are setting targets for the relatively short term, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, indicated, the problem may stretch over the next 25 years or so. However, we want to set targets which are demanding but achievable. They must be deliverable by those responsible—that is, mainly the local authorities.
	The general aim of minimising waste and recycling what is left is true of all waste streams, but particular issues arise in relation to the waste handled by local authorities. The strategy is conducted largely in order to reduce the amount of waste that local authorities put into landfill, as required under the landfill directive. As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill will give effect to the international obligations by setting councils individual limits for how much biodegradable waste they can send to landfill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked for definitions. Without wanting to pre-empt the Committee stage of the Bill, there is a definition of biodegradable waste in Clause 20 and a definition of municipal waste. I shall not go into that at present. We shall return to these matters in a few days' time.
	Nevertheless, I re-emphasise that the Bill also brings in a scheme of tradable allowances as well as the stick of requirements to implement targets. That will mean that economic levers are being used to ensure that local government meets the targets as set out in that Bill.
	As regards recycling targets, we issued guidance to all local authorities on municipal waste management strategies, including joint municipal waste management strategies, both horizontally and vertically. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is right; there is a particular problem in two-tier authorities where one authority is a collection authority and another a disposal authority. It is important that they act together but it is also important, particularly with smaller authorities, that they act in concert in order to deliver their own strategies and targets. Our Waste and Resources Action Programme helps to establish and create markets for recycled materials. That will help not only industrial producers of waste but also local authorities in offsetting their costs.
	The report of the Prime Minister' Strategy Unit published with the Pre-Budget Review a couple of weeks ago set out what is needed to deliver the waste strategy. In particular it concentrated on how to meet the landfill directive and produced a wide-ranging analysis and set of recommendations which need to be taken into account by the Government. We shall publish a full response to that in the spring. Work will start immediately through the new ministerial group.
	The main point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was that setting recycling targets on the basis of current performance was not a fair way of dealing with the matter. It is important to ensure that all authorities raise their performance. The very poorest need to attain a reasonable level. However, it is also important that those authorities at average or above average level also improve. If we are to move from a low level of performance now to a minimum achievement of 18 per cent in 2005-06, all local authorities will rapidly have to improve their performance. That means that we have to take account of where they are at present. If we are to set targets for collection authorities as well as for disposal authorities, the requirement to improve performance must rest at disposal authority level. In some cases, those disposal authorities are constrained by the way in which the collection authorities conduct their task.
	The noble Lord implied—I thought this was something of a side swipe—that there was some political influence on how the authorities were being challenged with these targets. It is right to say that all political parties have good performers and bad performers in terms of who runs the council at any given time. Although there may be greater priorities in some parts of the country than others, that is not entirely identifiable with political parties, although there is some difference in the way in which the number of relatively small county authorities have performed rather better than some urban and other remoter rural authorities.
	There are inherent difficulties, but the bids for government funding and the assessment of what needs to be done was made by an independent panel of experts from local government with NGOs and community sector representatives as well as the experts from the waste profession. Therefore, it was not conducted in any sense on a political bias basis. I am sure that the noble Lord was not pushing that too far. Nevertheless, I thought that I should put on record how that was done.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised a number of questions about incineration. The Strategy Unit recommended that there should be a review—this is based on the earlier recommendations already announced in the Pre-Budget Report the other week—of the health impacts of all waste options. It is important to mention that the level of health hazard represented by modern incineration is generally recognised to be pretty low. It is also true that many of the European states whom the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, cite as being well ahead of us in waste management performance are also heavily dependent on modern incineration methods.
	For example, the recycling performance of Denmark or the Netherlands is frequently cited. Denmark has 39 per cent recycling and the Netherlands 47 per cent, but they also have 50 per cent and 41 per cent respectively dealt with by modern incineration. The uniqueness of the United Kingdom lies in the way in which in a crowded island we have relied on landfill to a much greater extent than the rest of our European partners. Incineration can be part of the necessary strategy. It is therefore wrong to oppose incineration per se, and I regret that the Liberal Democrats are engaging in that degree of nimbyism. I thought that I might wake up the noble Baroness at that point.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I have been listening intently to the Minister, and I am grateful to him for giving way. My point was that there should be a moratorium until we have discovered that there are no health hazards and that incineration is environmentally the best way to deal with waste. The moratorium will not last forever if we can prove that.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly necessary to consider the health hazards arising from all methods of incineration, but it also true that emissions of dioxins from modern incinerator plants are very low. The exaggerated fears that are often portrayed during planning decisions and other assessments of incineration proposals are rather misplaced and based on older technologies and memories of different forms of incineration that are certainly not proposed in this country to deal with future waste.
	The noble Baroness also asked a few questions about the landfill tax credit scheme. The ministerial group announced in the Pre-Budget Report Statement that we would consider how to deploy that scheme more effectively and what money should go to local authorities and others. The objectives of that scheme will clearly include the need to ensure that landfill tax increases are revenue-neutral so that all the money will be recycled either to industry or local authorities. That reform of the scheme was announced in the PBR along with the increase in landfill tax to £35 a tonne.
	We continue to develop our approach to supporting councils, helping them to improve their performance. In the past two or three years, most local authorities appear to be taking their responsibilities much more seriously. Rather than being a relatively ghettoised area for local authorities, waste management has become a mainstream, top-priority area. We have tried to increase pressure to ensure that that occurs by writing to the leaders of local authorities whose recycling targets do not appear to be improving at a rate consistent with achieving our targets for 2003-04. We want those local authorities to be clear how they will achieve the targets and be accountable for their performance. We will need to intervene if they continue to appear to be failing to meet the targets.
	Several other issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about what was included in the recycling targets. In particular, he referred to the recycling of rubble. Rubble is excluded because the focus is on household waste. Some rubble may be household waste, but most of it is commercial waste. It can be distorting, if it is included in the total target, because it is extremely heavy. The noble Lord also mentioned home composting. It is also excluded because it is difficult to measure. Many see it as a waste minimisation measure, rather than an issue relating to how waste is dealt with.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to the need to raise public awareness. The Strategy Unit has recommended two education programmes to be taken forward under WRAP. We are certainly taking that up.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the problems that arose when formal measures of waste disposal failed and people engaged in fly-tipping. The noble Lord implied that the powers of the Environment Agency and the local authorities were insufficient. The Environment Act 1995 does not mean that they have those powers, but we are amending the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 to enable local authorities to do more to tackle the problem. They will enable local authorities to check business waste transfer notes and to check the origin of the fly-tipping. That should lead to better enforcement.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also referred to the need to reduce the generation of waste. That is certainly high in everyone's consciousness. We look to several measures, such as the packaging and packaging waste directive to reduce the amount of waste created in the first place.
	The point is to set up incentives, targets and support mechanisms that deliver the right results. We need a suite of indicators for local authorities and a suite of support measures for local authorities, so that we have a measure of growth, on the one hand, and a measure of the management of waste, through recycling, composting, incineration and so on, on the other. We need all local authorities to develop an effective strategy to meet their recycling targets and minimise their use of landfill. We will develop targets that will measure all those things and will require local authorities to take some strong measures to meet them.
	I welcome this important debate. I commend to noble Lords the report of the Strategy Unit and the recommendations contained therein. The Government will respond in full to the report in the new year. We will also take into account the points made in the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I am grateful that the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, lasted—mine almost did. I send my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his recovery, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her contribution in his stead.

House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.